![]() | 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. |
Anyone know why Magic is supposed to be for ages 13 and up? I'm thinking just how complex it is could be kinda difficult for younger players.-- Barkjon complaints here! 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
personnally, in addition to the above, i think it's also because Wizards didn't think everyone under thirteen would be able to play well, but you get that at mostt ages so I think it's moot... besides, i was tought by a ten year old. Jds500 ( talk) 18:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the 13+ came up around the same time MTG was being criticized for printing things like 'demons' and just being a game concerning magic in general. Also you do things like kill elves etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.120.50 ( talk) 13:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a little strange for an infobox's contents. I'm not fully experienced in wiki matters but is this common and acceptable? It certainly doesn't read in an encyclopedic way. And (edit) I forgot to mention that the person adding it didn't bother to check if it directed to the literary or colloquial term. 98.111.220.242 ( talk) 01:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Since someone readded this, I'll just add my voice to the consensus that it doesn't belong. "Common sense" is already an ill-defined term, and I don't really see what of "common sense" wouldn't be covered by "logic" anyway. I also pretty much agree with the other concerns that other editors have raised here. Croctotheface ( talk) 01:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Some ref links are dead or changed: 45, 16, 17 -- Trollmen ( talk) 16:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I have Cards From Before Alpha and Their dated 1991. I Know the Official Release Was in '93 but i think becaause there are multipule pre-alpha cards that it should be changed from 1993 to 1991. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conkern65 ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
In addition to all the reasons that have already been given why what Conkern says can't be true, cards didn't have copyright dates printed on them until 4th Edtion. 50.71.167.160 ( talk) 09:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I could have sworn that in the early days of this game, either in the rulebook or in an interview with Garfield, he said that the game was inspired by a card game he played that centered around baseball. I was never sure if he meant he played a game like MtG but centered around baseball or if he played a game with baseball cards with baseball stats to play a game. Never knowing quite what he meant fixed this fact in my head for all these years. Anyone else remember this? Anyone know what game he was talking about? Also, I think any game that inspired Magic, certainly deserves inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.146.69 ( talk) 23:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Random surfer - Yay, I can contribute to explaining what you are talking about. Drafting cards from booster packs was inspired by a baseball game (can't remember the name of it). In the baseball game you started the game by putting a random selection of cards on the table and taking turns picking players (cards). Since the playtesters knew the cards would be distributed in booster packs they made this work quicker by having each player open a booster pack and picking the cards at the same time. This is the reason drafting is called drafting; after the sports term. Can not remember where I've read this, so no source, sorry, but I suspect it was some article on magicthegathering.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.9.74 ( talk) 00:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if this recent edit, has real encyclopedical value. The subject seems noteworthy, but is written like a player guide, not like something you would expect in an encyclopedia. Also, the sources given (playing experience etc.) are in fact a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. What does everybody think about this?-- Narayan ( talk) 10:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The history section is a messy timeline, jumping back and forth without always making it clear, as if it were written one fact at a time. Here is an example:
"Beginning in 2009 one revision of the core set and three expansions are released every year. While the essence of the game has always stayed the same, the rules of Magic have undergone three major revisions with the release of the Revised Edition in 1994, Classic Edition in 1999, and Magic 2010 in July 2009.[13] With the release of the Eighth Edition in 2003, Magic also received a major visual redesign."
Additionally, the sections immediately preceding and following that quote refer to 1996.
Here are the dates as presented in the article (in order mentioned): 1991, 1993, 1997, 2003, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2009, 1994, 1999, 2009, 2003, 1996, 2009, 2002, 2008, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.99.29.11 ( talk) 17:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
At the history section i read: "Richard Garfield, the creator of the game, was a professor at Whitman College in 1993.", while the end of the very same paragraph reads: after two years of development Magic: The Gathering underwent a general release on 5 August 1993. Which makes me think about the source for that two year period? Is that two year period wrong, or the professor section, or doesn't the line about garfield being a professor matter at all?-- Narayan ( talk) 21:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The patent is invalid (as it was made public knowledge long before a patent was even applied for)and would lose in a court case if someone decided to copy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 ( talk) 10:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The section about gameplay is unclear to me:
AxelBoldt ( talk) 13:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this sub-section (if it stays it should be part of the Product and marketing section, not artwork), fails WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY, the only reference is Mark Rosewater's article on the subject. This was never a significant media controversy (comparable to the D&D demonic controversy of the 70's), as far as I'm aware that would warrant inclusion in the main article. Browsing the category I don't see any appropriate sub-article that this should be merged into. Perhaps a single sentence in the marketing section noting the disappearance of demons (retaining the ref of course) would be appropriate. Crazynas t 01:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
As of Nov. 13th, 2011 this page reads like a product advertisement. Before retiring I was an educator and a long time ago one of my students played this game to the point of obsession. On one occasion I tried playing the game at a shop but that was the only time. Nevertheless I did learn a great deal about the game from that student who I will call P. "Lane" S. Walker or PW for short.
Despite being impoverished PW was constantly buying more cards even though he already owned several hundred of them. Apparently most of his best cards had expired somehow and he always needed to buy new ones. Besides buying a small package of cards every few days he was also saving up to buy an entire set for about $200. His old stock, even if never used, had almost no value so he generally had to pay cash for the new ones.
He tried to explain the rules but to me but they were illogical. Consider the text on the wiki page, ""Whenever a card's text directly contradicts the rules, the card takes precedence"...The Comprehensive Rules, a detailed rulebook, exists to clarify these conflicts."
This is contradictory, if the card text takes precedent over the "rules" then whatever the "Comprehensive Rules" contain is irrelevant because they are still rules.
There are also cases where the text on the card is unclear or ambiguous or just wrong. For example, consider the text on the Brown Ouphe which PW showed to me, "Counter target artifact ability requiring and activation cost. Play this ability as an interrupt." Which ability is "this ability"? In English it must be the ability referred to in the first sentence. The passage isn't even ambiguous but anyone who tries to play it that way will be in for a fight because everyone else "knows" it is the Ouphe's ability. Note that in the real world the card text rarely takes precedence.
The one and only time I played the game it cost about $20 to buy a deck and some booster packs. That seemed a lot for cards that would soon expire so I stopped there. More than anything else this game is about continuously extracting money from its players. 68.149.247.130 ( talk) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Your comment does not address the main criticism of the game -- that a good number of players spend a large number of money acquiring cards and that they seem to purchase these cards often. Perhaps this situation is true of all collectable games, but it certainly does seem to be a flaw of m:tg - Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.58.237 ( talk) 03:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
No, compared to other games, card games, and board games, m:tg, is different in having so many cards for sale. If I play Munchkin, Dominion, or Carcassonne, I don't need to buy any more cards or pieces to keep successfully playing the game for weeks, months, even years. But I have yet to meet a m:tg player who was satisfied with her deck for more than six months. There are many many games that are much cheaper to play than m:tg. Are they better than m:tg? Personal preference if you like tag, baseball, Ticket to Ride, or Yinsh better than m:tg; but, all those games, in my experience are cheaper to play. - Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.58.237 ( talk) 04:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the page is missing this common criticism. I read this page, in order to research this information, and I was surprised to find it completely missing. I am not surprised to see this discussion in the Talk section, and I hope that the MTG page will be more than a list of selling points. 71.235.10.190 ( talk) 01:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | The related Category:Magic: The Gathering cards has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Magic the gathering-card back.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
Where is this movie? http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAP:_Maxova_hra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.169.66.117 ( talk) 13:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
"Going infinite" is a term, whose origins are unknown, that has been adapted by the Magic community to describe a particular lifestyle some Magic players live. "Going infinite" can be correlated to "Free-rolling", a commonly used poker term, in that the player has stopped putting their own money into the game and completely strived off of their play skills and tournament success to continue playing. For example: A player enters a tournament that originally cost them 500 dollars for all expenses, granted you have to start with some sort of bank roll, or funds, to begin this "infinite" lifestyle. After finishing the tournament, said player walks out with 1000 dollars, netting a profit of 500. The player then uses the 500 in winning to enter another tournament and continue to prosper off of successful tournament winnings. Magic: The Gathering has allowed very successful and skilled players to continue an "infinite" lifestyle with the establishment of Pro Players Club, set up at the Pro Tour London in 2005. The Pro Players Club awards these players with benefits, such as appearance fees, all expenses paid traveling and hotel stays, along with the opportunity to achieve a higher Pro Level status as the year of play progresses. The Pro Players Club goes up to level 8, where one gets all airfare and hotel stay paid for, along with up to 500 dollars for each appearance at weekly tournaments. One can accumulate upwards of ~50,000 in expenses and tournament appearance earnings throughout the year. The tide symbol is used as an approximate because airfare and hotel stays fluctuate all the time.
Few players are skilled enough to achieve the ability of "going infinite" because the credentials seem almost unattainable. Getting to level 8 is a milestone to say the least. Yuuya Watanabe is far and away the most consistent player in the game right now. He continues to be at the top of the standings in Pro Level play and is also the defending Player of the Year. Other players, such as Brian Kibler, Luis-Scott Vargas, Paulo Vito Damo de Rosa, and Jon Finkel are also some of the top players and the game and have seen level 8 before. Every Magic player that plays on the Pro level strives to become a level 8, and most will stop at nothing to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvanx010 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Using the publisher as a source for this fact is probably a bad idea, but a quick google search for "first trading card game" provided to guinness world records links, note they use the word modern or patent . I think these would be better sources, but cannot access them at this time and think that "modern" or "patenet" are important to the discussion. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 17:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
So, there have been recent modifications in the Colors section changing the term 'Pentagon of Colors' to 'Color Pie'. Both of these terms are correct, however the image that we are currently using depicts the 'Pentagon of Colors'. If people insist on using the 'Color Pie' terminology, then can someone provide a free image to use, otherwise I will (again) revert the recent change. Sincerely, Akjar13 ( He's Gone Mental) 12:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
How are notable cards decided? Yea, there's some really good and unusual cards in that section of each expansion, but what's the criteria? Supernerd11 ( talk) 19:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I was watching the Mini Minotaur video and saw a parody Magic card, so I put it on this page. It was quickly reverted due to the fact that it's just a quick glimpse, but shouldn't that still be mentioned? Tobuscus is pretty well known, after all. (I'm not mad, just curious) Supernerd11 ( talk) 19:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Template:Mtgcard creates an external link. Was there a discussion somewhere why to use it even though it goes against the standard way external links are dealt with (=removed)? See what Wikipedia is not. I can see its usefullness (helps the reader to see the card immediately etc.) but the same could be said about many other external links, especially pictures. ( A picture is worth a thousand words so why not include links to picture into the text of an article ;-) WikiHannibal ( talk) 22:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Are there any reliable third-party sources talking about Johnny and friends? All I can find are either not reliable enough or from Wizards, but they're a pretty important part of the game and should be added in. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 23:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is missing many citations, it has entire paragraphs where things are uncited. Even information likely to be contested, such as the discontinuation which is a gross misinterpretation of the facts. As it stands, this is not meeting the GA criteria and is in danger of losing its status. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 20:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I rewrote some parts of the storyline section. The aim was to integrate some parts on how Magic stories are used and how this has changed over the years. That also helps (I hope) to get at least a little bit away from the in-universe style that is always problematic in these kinds of things. On the other hand I didn't include any references so that brings its own problems. I think basically everything I have written has at some point been explained by Mark Rosewater in his column on dailymtg. If you think anything is particularly needing of reference, please annotate it and I will try to dig up a citation. However, as that one will probably come from MaRo it must be considered a primary source, so that helps only so much. But then this is a problem every article about M:tG is going to have to some extent... OdinFK ( talk) 14:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Currently in the lead "Magic: The Gathering" is described as "the first collectible card game" The only sources that say that are the developer of the game, who has a vested interest in calling it that, and the seller of the game who has a monetary interest in calling it that. The only third party source describes it as "the first modern collectible card game". When we describe McDonald's hamburgers do we say "the best hamburgers in the world" because McDonald's marking material says that? Of course not. We look for third party sources for it. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 17:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv ( talk) 18:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Are we certain that the Starcraft cheatcode references MTG and not the highlander series or movies? I'd like some actual reference for that.
The opening introduction
First published in 1993 by Wizards of the Coast, Magic was the first trading card game produced and it continues to thrive, with approximately twelve million players as of 2011.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
Has too many references. I would recommend shortening the amount.
Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 23:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
In the storyline section there is a part about major characters. Do we need that subsection? And if yes are there any criteria for inclusion?
Also shouldn't everything in the main Magic: The Gathering article be easily understandable to somebody without knowledge of the game? Take a look at the Jace description for example
"The blue Lorwyn Five Planeswalker from the plane of Vryn, Jace has visited a variety of planes, including Zendikar, Ravnica, and Lorwyn. While in his adopted home of Ravnica, he helped the dragon Niv-Mizzet and human (unknowingly a planeswalker) Ral Zarek solve the Implicit Maze, becoming a living, physical embodiment of the law of Ravnica, known as the Guildpact."
In just two sentences there are about a dozen terms that are unclear to somebody without knowledge of the game. On a side note, between all this fan lore Jace's main gist was forgotten: Jace is a telepath/mind mage. OdinFK ( talk) 09:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This should be mentioned as Patents are very important. It was made public knowledge before the patent was applied for (2 years before). Even tho the patent was given, it would not hold up due to it being made public knowledge before the patent application.-- Ertttttttt ( talk) 00:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Really that's not how patents work? Please explain or delete me asking you to explain. I do like all the other non referenced claims in the article, bet if I deleted them u would be upset for following the wiki rules...... LOL I like your baseless claim without reference! Please tell me about how the patent works.....-- Ertttttttt ( talk) 00:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
hows this? theres a lot more if u want http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/11/15/a-powerful-new-weapon-against-patent-trolls/#51d60485fe73
http://www.phoenixip.com.au/patents/keep-secret-public-disclosure-patent-validity/
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=RzZydAHtUoIC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=public+knowledge+invalidates+patents&source=bl&ots=yJGpMv_HSU&sig=RLD-eF2osH1kEHA-3ItX7KscMd4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmx-fs7OHKAhWBVZQKHSTBDTAQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=public%20knowledge%20invalidates%20patents&f=false-- Ertttttttt ( talk) 00:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
LOL if u patent it after its become public knowledge the patent wont stand up. I bet your a patent lawyer? DID U EVEN READ THE ARTICLES? The date its valid can not before the filling! WOW TRY READING! Well I'm off to delete things not referenced OUCH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertttttttt ( talk • contribs) 02:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
"Magic can be played by two or more players in various formats, the most common of which uses a deck of 60+ cards, either in person with printed cards or using a deck of virtual cards through the Internet-based Magic: The Gathering Online, on a smartphone or tablet, or other programs. Each game represents a battle between wizards known as "planeswalkers", who employ spells, artifacts, and creatures depicted on individual Magic cards to defeat their opponents. Although the original concept of the game drew heavily from the motifs of traditional fantasy role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, the gameplay of Magic bears little similarity to pencil-and-paper adventure games, while having substantially more cards and more complex rules than many other card games. An organized tournament system and a community of professional Magic players has developed, as has a secondary market for Magic cards. Magic cards can be valuable due to their rarity and utility in gameplay. Often the prices of a single card can be anywhere from a few cents to a few hundred dollars, and in some instances thousands of dollars."
NO REFERENCE SHALL I DELETE IT FOR YOU? No no u want to apply rules absurdly one way and then ignore them when u want. This is why wiki blog is a joke-- Ertttttttt ( talk) 02:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that there are some out-of-date facts that should be changed because of the Oath of the Gatewatch release. This includes the addition of pure colorless mana, the current standard blocks, and the number of sets in a block (The last two are under Organized Play.) How should we go about this? Buscus 3 ( talk) 04:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Magic: The Gathering. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
There's been an edit war going on the last few days over this, starting with an IP's POV/biased edits here: diff. This was reverted, then unreverted. I then trimmed most of the bias and unsourced parts out, leaving a core sourced sentence here: diff. This was reverted and edit warred over for a bit more and was ultimately removed. After a day or so (Enough time to try to dodge 3RR....), it was added back in what I view as an even more biased/POV edit than before, here: diff.
This new edit has some hefty NPOV issues. I do believe it's worthwhile to get something into the article about sexism in the MTG community, but we need quality sources and neutral text. The latest version is heavily leaning on low quality sources, has some prose/grammar issues, and a bit of OR in the last sentence, so I reverted it for now. Let's see some discussion and a consensus on what to add to the article. -- ferret ( talk) 19:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Would it be worth having a section on references to MTG in popular culture? For example, the TV situation comedy THE BIG BANG THEORY has a spoof of MTG where the characters play Mystic Warlords of Ka'a and throw down cards with crazy names, as a spoof of collector-card play. They refer to which card beats which, and say, "EVERYTHING beats Enchanted Bunny!" The game was started up for real as a free online game for a time. 66.241.130.86 ( talk) 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate to start the Reception section with 'some consider the game very addictive ... cardboardcrack ...'? People have said that, but the people are not even named, and it sounds tabloid style. Also for the very addictive part the cited article is called 'Confessions of an MTGO addict'. MTGO is Magic Online so the article doesn't even apply a 100% to MTG as a whole.
The SCG article is from a guy who writes a few paragraphs about his addiction. Turns out many things are addictive if you like them. Most articles about potentially addictive things (coffee, chocolate, ...) don't have an addiction section, though. I would have no qualms having a section about addiction if there was scientific research on this topic, but this way it is just 'one man said...'.
Finally the USA Today article is from 2004. That is a 12 year old reference for a 22 year old game. I don't think it is justified to make the statement that Magic is called cardboard crack based on a reference that old, one that is mostly vague and all over the place in its description of the game.
I removed the first line of the section on these grounds. I do understand that Magic has been criticized and that there are certainly legitimate reasons to criticize Magic, but these criticism should be based on quality refences. OdinFK ( talk) 07:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Netoholic @ 06:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
In an unrelated topic, this paragraph: "For the first few years of its production, Magic: The Gathering featured a small number of cards with names or artwork with demonic or occultist themes, in 1995 the company elected to remove such references from the game. In 2002, believing that the depiction of demons was becoming less controversial and that the game had established itself sufficiently, Wizards of the Coast reversed this policy and resumed printing cards with "demon" in their names," should be moved to Reception. It fits the needs of that section and is less relevant to the section it is in now. Leitmotiv ( talk) 21:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Leitmotiv ( talk) 20:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Reception as received by the less than 1% of the population who most prob never have anything to do with such games anyway? Who cares?-- Thelawlollol ( talk) 08:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
i miss a section that would sum up the downsides of this ongoing game and story writing process. mtg is never finished as it keeps adding new sequels to the multiverse storyline and keeps changing the cardgame, adding new rules, new card categories, new card layout designs,and changing retroactively the gameplay buy shifting the winning conditions. i am not arguing that the game does not have its merits, or that it would deserve a negative review, but i think that a section to summarize the criticizm would make the article more balanced. otherwise the article reads as an advertisment, bearing the one sided view of the product's developers and the company selling it. to help starting this section, my 2cents: the game's underlying principle is to make its customers feel powerful buy buying the newest cards that as a general rule beat the older ones (with the notable exception of an out of print set of 9 cards that arebanned from use in most official playing events and are practically non available). the chabce for winning the game is heavily influenced by the money spent for acquisition of stronger and rarer cards, that then soon become obsolete and outpowered by newly invented game mechanics and new cards from subsequent expansions. thres also a tendency of inflation, new rules and game mchanics introduced every few months that are not necessarily adding to the fun, but keep relatively new players in the buying cycle. 176.63.176.112 ( talk) 22:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC).
It does read like a press release form the Owners Press Office, as do alot of articles as companies will spend the time and effort to make it so. The game has to change to make it interesting or people would get board. It has the basis of all card games, PAY TO WIN,(Simple supply and demand as in everything in life), but it also does involve alot of skill unlike alot of other games.-- TobyWongly ( talk) 07:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
No mention of the Patent and has it ever been tested in court? (likely to fail). There several games which contain parts that are clearly set out in the MTG Patent! -- TobyWongly ( talk) 07:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Magic: The Gathering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Magic: The Gathering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://faculty.bschool.washington.edu/skotha/website/cases%20pdf/Wizards%20of%20the%20coast%201.4.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I think this section needs to be there; WOTC, Channel Fireball, and The Judges program have issued statements and there is a history there. — Terps2008 ( talk • contribs) 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The Meta is getting figured out quickly (mainly due to the web and data), resulting in infrequent card bans. Some mentioning of this I think should be in the standard section? — Terps2008 ( talk • contribs) 16 January 2018 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. So players "Whining" or "Endless Whines," is the new criteria to mention it on the MTG wiki? I think at least mentioning it in the Standard section is valid. If it wasn't an issue WOTC would not be banning cards or discussing the meta. —
Terps2008 (
talk •
contribs) 16 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
128.229.4.2 (
talk)
![]() | This
edit request to
Magic: The Gathering has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Link references to the Commander format to the Wikipedia article at /info/en/?search=Magic:_The_Gathering_Commander Cheshyrp ( talk) 18:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I found this in the Product and Marketing section. I do not yet have enough authority on wikipedia to fix it, however, so if someone sees this, please fix it.
Each set since Kaldesh (Kaladesh) features two Planeswalker decks. They contain a 60-card pre-constructed deck with an exclusive Planeswalker, as well as several exclusive cards, two booster packs from the set they accompany, as well as a rule guide and a card board box with an image of the included Planeswalker.
Dactorwatson ( talk) 23:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The storyline section seems way too specific after the first 2-3 paragraphs. I don't think it is of much use to the casual reader to list all the individual storylines. After the first two paragraphs the main periods of note in Magic's storyline development seem to be the long storyline arc of the Weatherlight, the Mending-realted change in scope of the Planeswalkers (down from basically godhood), and finally the Gatewatch. Maybe the change from books and comics to developing the story in story articles on Wizards' own site should be mentioned, too. Does this make sense or am I wrong here? OdinFK ( talk) 12:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Magic was the first trading card game created
Someone's got a conveniently short memory. Never heard of something called Top Trumps?
Nuttyskin ( talk) 10:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Apriestofgix: thanks for your recent addition. Could you help us by defining (and sourcing) the keyword "Eternal" in the Formats section? Otherwise it should be removed, per MoS. Elfabet ( talk) 13:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Does this belong under History, or should we just join its source with the Film/TV header under other media/products? Cheers! Elfabet ( talk) 13:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone wants to use it, there was a review from Pyramid #4 (Nov./Dec., 1993): [2] 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 ( talk) 18:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello all that are part of the Magic project here, and to those that aren't and are reading this; welcome! I think we should consider reducing the content of this section and/or updating the picture for this section. I believe that new players should use the resources provided directly by Wizards of the Coast for this kind of thing. Ender4511 ( talk) 14:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Ender4511 ( talk) 13:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I saw that someone added who leads each color to the color section. As it has no source, and isn't relevant, should it be removed? Waffle Attack11 ( talk) 18:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Regeneration (Magic: The Gathering) should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Regeneration (Magic: The Gathering) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Gerrard Capashen should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Gerrard Capashen until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Some of the guilds are misspelled in the diagram on this page. Specifically:
I'd recommend that the diagram be changed or removed, particularly since there is no other reference to the guilds, shards, or wedges on the page.
Cosinity ( talk) 20:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I copied over the information from the Writing and storyline section to the Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) article since that article needed improvement (per the MOS:INUNIVERSE tag and the 2016 AfD discussion). Given the size of this article (>123kB), it might be worth trimming the Writing and storyline section. I'm not the most familiar with the topic so I'm unsure which information should be prioritized in a smaller summary. Also, I think we should removed the table from Comics section since that information is in both the Multiverse article & the List of Magic: The Gathering novels. Thoughts? Sariel Xilo ( talk) 22:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Masem just reverted an edit of mine with the justification "having a couple points does not hurt". I actually think it does. Why do we want to have multiple historical reference points for Black Lotus auctions? The article is quite bloated as it is. I don't really see how an arbitrary second reference point improves the quality of the article. The first gives the reader an idea of how expensive Magic cards can be, but how does the second auction add significant additional insights to the reader? OdinFK ( talk) 17:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Why is it so hard to find out how many booster packs have been sold of a particular TCG? You search "Best Selling" and it only gives you current popularity 2601:346:C201:60C0:B5F2:DF40:9BD3:BCF2 ( talk) 23:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Interested editors may want to comment there, particularly regarding if anything is rescuable, perhaps by a merger here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The current image used is not the correct Magic card back. It's the back of a misprinted image file that was used for a specific print run of 4th Edition, which was then recalled. (More information here.) The difference is the top of the "A" in "Magic"; on the correct card back the top is lighter than the rest of the "A", while on the incorrect card back it's darker. The correct card back can be seen here, along with many other places. (If you have a Magic card, just pick it up and look at the back.)
The reason this incorrect image is so widespread is because Wizards of the Coast themselves often uses it accidentally in their official material, such as here and here. (Wizards has also done this with other wrong card backs too, like this one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSupernova ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone translate this image to English? It would be good for English article on Magic: The Gathering. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all! We should try to keep updating this article when they release new sets, or potentially link to a page that lists the expansions. This should serve as a reminder to future editors to be bold and add new sections if they visit this article and notice that newer additions have not yet been included! : ) Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) ( talk) 14:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing talking about Draft play; and there is no reference on game pieces except for the actual cards themselves. 2600:1700:93B0:6B50:BC6A:C67:7A27:7D40 ( talk) 08:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know the release day of mtg was at Gen Con Milwaukee in 93, so exactly 30 years ago. (19.08.1993 and not the 05.08.1993) So my question is: Where did the author of this article get the info about the 05.08.1993? FinksJuice ( talk) 12:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Anyone know why Magic is supposed to be for ages 13 and up? I'm thinking just how complex it is could be kinda difficult for younger players.-- Barkjon complaints here! 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
personnally, in addition to the above, i think it's also because Wizards didn't think everyone under thirteen would be able to play well, but you get that at mostt ages so I think it's moot... besides, i was tought by a ten year old. Jds500 ( talk) 18:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the 13+ came up around the same time MTG was being criticized for printing things like 'demons' and just being a game concerning magic in general. Also you do things like kill elves etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.120.50 ( talk) 13:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a little strange for an infobox's contents. I'm not fully experienced in wiki matters but is this common and acceptable? It certainly doesn't read in an encyclopedic way. And (edit) I forgot to mention that the person adding it didn't bother to check if it directed to the literary or colloquial term. 98.111.220.242 ( talk) 01:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Since someone readded this, I'll just add my voice to the consensus that it doesn't belong. "Common sense" is already an ill-defined term, and I don't really see what of "common sense" wouldn't be covered by "logic" anyway. I also pretty much agree with the other concerns that other editors have raised here. Croctotheface ( talk) 01:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Some ref links are dead or changed: 45, 16, 17 -- Trollmen ( talk) 16:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I have Cards From Before Alpha and Their dated 1991. I Know the Official Release Was in '93 but i think becaause there are multipule pre-alpha cards that it should be changed from 1993 to 1991. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conkern65 ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
In addition to all the reasons that have already been given why what Conkern says can't be true, cards didn't have copyright dates printed on them until 4th Edtion. 50.71.167.160 ( talk) 09:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I could have sworn that in the early days of this game, either in the rulebook or in an interview with Garfield, he said that the game was inspired by a card game he played that centered around baseball. I was never sure if he meant he played a game like MtG but centered around baseball or if he played a game with baseball cards with baseball stats to play a game. Never knowing quite what he meant fixed this fact in my head for all these years. Anyone else remember this? Anyone know what game he was talking about? Also, I think any game that inspired Magic, certainly deserves inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.146.69 ( talk) 23:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Random surfer - Yay, I can contribute to explaining what you are talking about. Drafting cards from booster packs was inspired by a baseball game (can't remember the name of it). In the baseball game you started the game by putting a random selection of cards on the table and taking turns picking players (cards). Since the playtesters knew the cards would be distributed in booster packs they made this work quicker by having each player open a booster pack and picking the cards at the same time. This is the reason drafting is called drafting; after the sports term. Can not remember where I've read this, so no source, sorry, but I suspect it was some article on magicthegathering.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.9.74 ( talk) 00:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if this recent edit, has real encyclopedical value. The subject seems noteworthy, but is written like a player guide, not like something you would expect in an encyclopedia. Also, the sources given (playing experience etc.) are in fact a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. What does everybody think about this?-- Narayan ( talk) 10:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The history section is a messy timeline, jumping back and forth without always making it clear, as if it were written one fact at a time. Here is an example:
"Beginning in 2009 one revision of the core set and three expansions are released every year. While the essence of the game has always stayed the same, the rules of Magic have undergone three major revisions with the release of the Revised Edition in 1994, Classic Edition in 1999, and Magic 2010 in July 2009.[13] With the release of the Eighth Edition in 2003, Magic also received a major visual redesign."
Additionally, the sections immediately preceding and following that quote refer to 1996.
Here are the dates as presented in the article (in order mentioned): 1991, 1993, 1997, 2003, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2009, 1994, 1999, 2009, 2003, 1996, 2009, 2002, 2008, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.99.29.11 ( talk) 17:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
At the history section i read: "Richard Garfield, the creator of the game, was a professor at Whitman College in 1993.", while the end of the very same paragraph reads: after two years of development Magic: The Gathering underwent a general release on 5 August 1993. Which makes me think about the source for that two year period? Is that two year period wrong, or the professor section, or doesn't the line about garfield being a professor matter at all?-- Narayan ( talk) 21:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The patent is invalid (as it was made public knowledge long before a patent was even applied for)and would lose in a court case if someone decided to copy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 ( talk) 10:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The section about gameplay is unclear to me:
AxelBoldt ( talk) 13:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this sub-section (if it stays it should be part of the Product and marketing section, not artwork), fails WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY, the only reference is Mark Rosewater's article on the subject. This was never a significant media controversy (comparable to the D&D demonic controversy of the 70's), as far as I'm aware that would warrant inclusion in the main article. Browsing the category I don't see any appropriate sub-article that this should be merged into. Perhaps a single sentence in the marketing section noting the disappearance of demons (retaining the ref of course) would be appropriate. Crazynas t 01:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
As of Nov. 13th, 2011 this page reads like a product advertisement. Before retiring I was an educator and a long time ago one of my students played this game to the point of obsession. On one occasion I tried playing the game at a shop but that was the only time. Nevertheless I did learn a great deal about the game from that student who I will call P. "Lane" S. Walker or PW for short.
Despite being impoverished PW was constantly buying more cards even though he already owned several hundred of them. Apparently most of his best cards had expired somehow and he always needed to buy new ones. Besides buying a small package of cards every few days he was also saving up to buy an entire set for about $200. His old stock, even if never used, had almost no value so he generally had to pay cash for the new ones.
He tried to explain the rules but to me but they were illogical. Consider the text on the wiki page, ""Whenever a card's text directly contradicts the rules, the card takes precedence"...The Comprehensive Rules, a detailed rulebook, exists to clarify these conflicts."
This is contradictory, if the card text takes precedent over the "rules" then whatever the "Comprehensive Rules" contain is irrelevant because they are still rules.
There are also cases where the text on the card is unclear or ambiguous or just wrong. For example, consider the text on the Brown Ouphe which PW showed to me, "Counter target artifact ability requiring and activation cost. Play this ability as an interrupt." Which ability is "this ability"? In English it must be the ability referred to in the first sentence. The passage isn't even ambiguous but anyone who tries to play it that way will be in for a fight because everyone else "knows" it is the Ouphe's ability. Note that in the real world the card text rarely takes precedence.
The one and only time I played the game it cost about $20 to buy a deck and some booster packs. That seemed a lot for cards that would soon expire so I stopped there. More than anything else this game is about continuously extracting money from its players. 68.149.247.130 ( talk) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Your comment does not address the main criticism of the game -- that a good number of players spend a large number of money acquiring cards and that they seem to purchase these cards often. Perhaps this situation is true of all collectable games, but it certainly does seem to be a flaw of m:tg - Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.58.237 ( talk) 03:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
No, compared to other games, card games, and board games, m:tg, is different in having so many cards for sale. If I play Munchkin, Dominion, or Carcassonne, I don't need to buy any more cards or pieces to keep successfully playing the game for weeks, months, even years. But I have yet to meet a m:tg player who was satisfied with her deck for more than six months. There are many many games that are much cheaper to play than m:tg. Are they better than m:tg? Personal preference if you like tag, baseball, Ticket to Ride, or Yinsh better than m:tg; but, all those games, in my experience are cheaper to play. - Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.58.237 ( talk) 04:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the page is missing this common criticism. I read this page, in order to research this information, and I was surprised to find it completely missing. I am not surprised to see this discussion in the Talk section, and I hope that the MTG page will be more than a list of selling points. 71.235.10.190 ( talk) 01:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | The related Category:Magic: The Gathering cards has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Magic the gathering-card back.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
Where is this movie? http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAP:_Maxova_hra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.169.66.117 ( talk) 13:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
"Going infinite" is a term, whose origins are unknown, that has been adapted by the Magic community to describe a particular lifestyle some Magic players live. "Going infinite" can be correlated to "Free-rolling", a commonly used poker term, in that the player has stopped putting their own money into the game and completely strived off of their play skills and tournament success to continue playing. For example: A player enters a tournament that originally cost them 500 dollars for all expenses, granted you have to start with some sort of bank roll, or funds, to begin this "infinite" lifestyle. After finishing the tournament, said player walks out with 1000 dollars, netting a profit of 500. The player then uses the 500 in winning to enter another tournament and continue to prosper off of successful tournament winnings. Magic: The Gathering has allowed very successful and skilled players to continue an "infinite" lifestyle with the establishment of Pro Players Club, set up at the Pro Tour London in 2005. The Pro Players Club awards these players with benefits, such as appearance fees, all expenses paid traveling and hotel stays, along with the opportunity to achieve a higher Pro Level status as the year of play progresses. The Pro Players Club goes up to level 8, where one gets all airfare and hotel stay paid for, along with up to 500 dollars for each appearance at weekly tournaments. One can accumulate upwards of ~50,000 in expenses and tournament appearance earnings throughout the year. The tide symbol is used as an approximate because airfare and hotel stays fluctuate all the time.
Few players are skilled enough to achieve the ability of "going infinite" because the credentials seem almost unattainable. Getting to level 8 is a milestone to say the least. Yuuya Watanabe is far and away the most consistent player in the game right now. He continues to be at the top of the standings in Pro Level play and is also the defending Player of the Year. Other players, such as Brian Kibler, Luis-Scott Vargas, Paulo Vito Damo de Rosa, and Jon Finkel are also some of the top players and the game and have seen level 8 before. Every Magic player that plays on the Pro level strives to become a level 8, and most will stop at nothing to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvanx010 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Using the publisher as a source for this fact is probably a bad idea, but a quick google search for "first trading card game" provided to guinness world records links, note they use the word modern or patent . I think these would be better sources, but cannot access them at this time and think that "modern" or "patenet" are important to the discussion. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 17:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
So, there have been recent modifications in the Colors section changing the term 'Pentagon of Colors' to 'Color Pie'. Both of these terms are correct, however the image that we are currently using depicts the 'Pentagon of Colors'. If people insist on using the 'Color Pie' terminology, then can someone provide a free image to use, otherwise I will (again) revert the recent change. Sincerely, Akjar13 ( He's Gone Mental) 12:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
How are notable cards decided? Yea, there's some really good and unusual cards in that section of each expansion, but what's the criteria? Supernerd11 ( talk) 19:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I was watching the Mini Minotaur video and saw a parody Magic card, so I put it on this page. It was quickly reverted due to the fact that it's just a quick glimpse, but shouldn't that still be mentioned? Tobuscus is pretty well known, after all. (I'm not mad, just curious) Supernerd11 ( talk) 19:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Template:Mtgcard creates an external link. Was there a discussion somewhere why to use it even though it goes against the standard way external links are dealt with (=removed)? See what Wikipedia is not. I can see its usefullness (helps the reader to see the card immediately etc.) but the same could be said about many other external links, especially pictures. ( A picture is worth a thousand words so why not include links to picture into the text of an article ;-) WikiHannibal ( talk) 22:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Are there any reliable third-party sources talking about Johnny and friends? All I can find are either not reliable enough or from Wizards, but they're a pretty important part of the game and should be added in. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 23:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is missing many citations, it has entire paragraphs where things are uncited. Even information likely to be contested, such as the discontinuation which is a gross misinterpretation of the facts. As it stands, this is not meeting the GA criteria and is in danger of losing its status. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 20:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I rewrote some parts of the storyline section. The aim was to integrate some parts on how Magic stories are used and how this has changed over the years. That also helps (I hope) to get at least a little bit away from the in-universe style that is always problematic in these kinds of things. On the other hand I didn't include any references so that brings its own problems. I think basically everything I have written has at some point been explained by Mark Rosewater in his column on dailymtg. If you think anything is particularly needing of reference, please annotate it and I will try to dig up a citation. However, as that one will probably come from MaRo it must be considered a primary source, so that helps only so much. But then this is a problem every article about M:tG is going to have to some extent... OdinFK ( talk) 14:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Currently in the lead "Magic: The Gathering" is described as "the first collectible card game" The only sources that say that are the developer of the game, who has a vested interest in calling it that, and the seller of the game who has a monetary interest in calling it that. The only third party source describes it as "the first modern collectible card game". When we describe McDonald's hamburgers do we say "the best hamburgers in the world" because McDonald's marking material says that? Of course not. We look for third party sources for it. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 17:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv ( talk) 18:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Are we certain that the Starcraft cheatcode references MTG and not the highlander series or movies? I'd like some actual reference for that.
The opening introduction
First published in 1993 by Wizards of the Coast, Magic was the first trading card game produced and it continues to thrive, with approximately twelve million players as of 2011.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
Has too many references. I would recommend shortening the amount.
Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 23:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
In the storyline section there is a part about major characters. Do we need that subsection? And if yes are there any criteria for inclusion?
Also shouldn't everything in the main Magic: The Gathering article be easily understandable to somebody without knowledge of the game? Take a look at the Jace description for example
"The blue Lorwyn Five Planeswalker from the plane of Vryn, Jace has visited a variety of planes, including Zendikar, Ravnica, and Lorwyn. While in his adopted home of Ravnica, he helped the dragon Niv-Mizzet and human (unknowingly a planeswalker) Ral Zarek solve the Implicit Maze, becoming a living, physical embodiment of the law of Ravnica, known as the Guildpact."
In just two sentences there are about a dozen terms that are unclear to somebody without knowledge of the game. On a side note, between all this fan lore Jace's main gist was forgotten: Jace is a telepath/mind mage. OdinFK ( talk) 09:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This should be mentioned as Patents are very important. It was made public knowledge before the patent was applied for (2 years before). Even tho the patent was given, it would not hold up due to it being made public knowledge before the patent application.-- Ertttttttt ( talk) 00:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Really that's not how patents work? Please explain or delete me asking you to explain. I do like all the other non referenced claims in the article, bet if I deleted them u would be upset for following the wiki rules...... LOL I like your baseless claim without reference! Please tell me about how the patent works.....-- Ertttttttt ( talk) 00:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
hows this? theres a lot more if u want http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/11/15/a-powerful-new-weapon-against-patent-trolls/#51d60485fe73
http://www.phoenixip.com.au/patents/keep-secret-public-disclosure-patent-validity/
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=RzZydAHtUoIC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=public+knowledge+invalidates+patents&source=bl&ots=yJGpMv_HSU&sig=RLD-eF2osH1kEHA-3ItX7KscMd4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmx-fs7OHKAhWBVZQKHSTBDTAQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=public%20knowledge%20invalidates%20patents&f=false-- Ertttttttt ( talk) 00:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
LOL if u patent it after its become public knowledge the patent wont stand up. I bet your a patent lawyer? DID U EVEN READ THE ARTICLES? The date its valid can not before the filling! WOW TRY READING! Well I'm off to delete things not referenced OUCH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertttttttt ( talk • contribs) 02:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
"Magic can be played by two or more players in various formats, the most common of which uses a deck of 60+ cards, either in person with printed cards or using a deck of virtual cards through the Internet-based Magic: The Gathering Online, on a smartphone or tablet, or other programs. Each game represents a battle between wizards known as "planeswalkers", who employ spells, artifacts, and creatures depicted on individual Magic cards to defeat their opponents. Although the original concept of the game drew heavily from the motifs of traditional fantasy role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, the gameplay of Magic bears little similarity to pencil-and-paper adventure games, while having substantially more cards and more complex rules than many other card games. An organized tournament system and a community of professional Magic players has developed, as has a secondary market for Magic cards. Magic cards can be valuable due to their rarity and utility in gameplay. Often the prices of a single card can be anywhere from a few cents to a few hundred dollars, and in some instances thousands of dollars."
NO REFERENCE SHALL I DELETE IT FOR YOU? No no u want to apply rules absurdly one way and then ignore them when u want. This is why wiki blog is a joke-- Ertttttttt ( talk) 02:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that there are some out-of-date facts that should be changed because of the Oath of the Gatewatch release. This includes the addition of pure colorless mana, the current standard blocks, and the number of sets in a block (The last two are under Organized Play.) How should we go about this? Buscus 3 ( talk) 04:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Magic: The Gathering. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
There's been an edit war going on the last few days over this, starting with an IP's POV/biased edits here: diff. This was reverted, then unreverted. I then trimmed most of the bias and unsourced parts out, leaving a core sourced sentence here: diff. This was reverted and edit warred over for a bit more and was ultimately removed. After a day or so (Enough time to try to dodge 3RR....), it was added back in what I view as an even more biased/POV edit than before, here: diff.
This new edit has some hefty NPOV issues. I do believe it's worthwhile to get something into the article about sexism in the MTG community, but we need quality sources and neutral text. The latest version is heavily leaning on low quality sources, has some prose/grammar issues, and a bit of OR in the last sentence, so I reverted it for now. Let's see some discussion and a consensus on what to add to the article. -- ferret ( talk) 19:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Would it be worth having a section on references to MTG in popular culture? For example, the TV situation comedy THE BIG BANG THEORY has a spoof of MTG where the characters play Mystic Warlords of Ka'a and throw down cards with crazy names, as a spoof of collector-card play. They refer to which card beats which, and say, "EVERYTHING beats Enchanted Bunny!" The game was started up for real as a free online game for a time. 66.241.130.86 ( talk) 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate to start the Reception section with 'some consider the game very addictive ... cardboardcrack ...'? People have said that, but the people are not even named, and it sounds tabloid style. Also for the very addictive part the cited article is called 'Confessions of an MTGO addict'. MTGO is Magic Online so the article doesn't even apply a 100% to MTG as a whole.
The SCG article is from a guy who writes a few paragraphs about his addiction. Turns out many things are addictive if you like them. Most articles about potentially addictive things (coffee, chocolate, ...) don't have an addiction section, though. I would have no qualms having a section about addiction if there was scientific research on this topic, but this way it is just 'one man said...'.
Finally the USA Today article is from 2004. That is a 12 year old reference for a 22 year old game. I don't think it is justified to make the statement that Magic is called cardboard crack based on a reference that old, one that is mostly vague and all over the place in its description of the game.
I removed the first line of the section on these grounds. I do understand that Magic has been criticized and that there are certainly legitimate reasons to criticize Magic, but these criticism should be based on quality refences. OdinFK ( talk) 07:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Netoholic @ 06:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
In an unrelated topic, this paragraph: "For the first few years of its production, Magic: The Gathering featured a small number of cards with names or artwork with demonic or occultist themes, in 1995 the company elected to remove such references from the game. In 2002, believing that the depiction of demons was becoming less controversial and that the game had established itself sufficiently, Wizards of the Coast reversed this policy and resumed printing cards with "demon" in their names," should be moved to Reception. It fits the needs of that section and is less relevant to the section it is in now. Leitmotiv ( talk) 21:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Leitmotiv ( talk) 20:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Reception as received by the less than 1% of the population who most prob never have anything to do with such games anyway? Who cares?-- Thelawlollol ( talk) 08:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
i miss a section that would sum up the downsides of this ongoing game and story writing process. mtg is never finished as it keeps adding new sequels to the multiverse storyline and keeps changing the cardgame, adding new rules, new card categories, new card layout designs,and changing retroactively the gameplay buy shifting the winning conditions. i am not arguing that the game does not have its merits, or that it would deserve a negative review, but i think that a section to summarize the criticizm would make the article more balanced. otherwise the article reads as an advertisment, bearing the one sided view of the product's developers and the company selling it. to help starting this section, my 2cents: the game's underlying principle is to make its customers feel powerful buy buying the newest cards that as a general rule beat the older ones (with the notable exception of an out of print set of 9 cards that arebanned from use in most official playing events and are practically non available). the chabce for winning the game is heavily influenced by the money spent for acquisition of stronger and rarer cards, that then soon become obsolete and outpowered by newly invented game mechanics and new cards from subsequent expansions. thres also a tendency of inflation, new rules and game mchanics introduced every few months that are not necessarily adding to the fun, but keep relatively new players in the buying cycle. 176.63.176.112 ( talk) 22:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC).
It does read like a press release form the Owners Press Office, as do alot of articles as companies will spend the time and effort to make it so. The game has to change to make it interesting or people would get board. It has the basis of all card games, PAY TO WIN,(Simple supply and demand as in everything in life), but it also does involve alot of skill unlike alot of other games.-- TobyWongly ( talk) 07:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
No mention of the Patent and has it ever been tested in court? (likely to fail). There several games which contain parts that are clearly set out in the MTG Patent! -- TobyWongly ( talk) 07:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Magic: The Gathering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Magic: The Gathering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://faculty.bschool.washington.edu/skotha/website/cases%20pdf/Wizards%20of%20the%20coast%201.4.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I think this section needs to be there; WOTC, Channel Fireball, and The Judges program have issued statements and there is a history there. — Terps2008 ( talk • contribs) 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The Meta is getting figured out quickly (mainly due to the web and data), resulting in infrequent card bans. Some mentioning of this I think should be in the standard section? — Terps2008 ( talk • contribs) 16 January 2018 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. So players "Whining" or "Endless Whines," is the new criteria to mention it on the MTG wiki? I think at least mentioning it in the Standard section is valid. If it wasn't an issue WOTC would not be banning cards or discussing the meta. —
Terps2008 (
talk •
contribs) 16 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
128.229.4.2 (
talk)
![]() | This
edit request to
Magic: The Gathering has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Link references to the Commander format to the Wikipedia article at /info/en/?search=Magic:_The_Gathering_Commander Cheshyrp ( talk) 18:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I found this in the Product and Marketing section. I do not yet have enough authority on wikipedia to fix it, however, so if someone sees this, please fix it.
Each set since Kaldesh (Kaladesh) features two Planeswalker decks. They contain a 60-card pre-constructed deck with an exclusive Planeswalker, as well as several exclusive cards, two booster packs from the set they accompany, as well as a rule guide and a card board box with an image of the included Planeswalker.
Dactorwatson ( talk) 23:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The storyline section seems way too specific after the first 2-3 paragraphs. I don't think it is of much use to the casual reader to list all the individual storylines. After the first two paragraphs the main periods of note in Magic's storyline development seem to be the long storyline arc of the Weatherlight, the Mending-realted change in scope of the Planeswalkers (down from basically godhood), and finally the Gatewatch. Maybe the change from books and comics to developing the story in story articles on Wizards' own site should be mentioned, too. Does this make sense or am I wrong here? OdinFK ( talk) 12:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Magic was the first trading card game created
Someone's got a conveniently short memory. Never heard of something called Top Trumps?
Nuttyskin ( talk) 10:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Apriestofgix: thanks for your recent addition. Could you help us by defining (and sourcing) the keyword "Eternal" in the Formats section? Otherwise it should be removed, per MoS. Elfabet ( talk) 13:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Does this belong under History, or should we just join its source with the Film/TV header under other media/products? Cheers! Elfabet ( talk) 13:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone wants to use it, there was a review from Pyramid #4 (Nov./Dec., 1993): [2] 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 ( talk) 18:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello all that are part of the Magic project here, and to those that aren't and are reading this; welcome! I think we should consider reducing the content of this section and/or updating the picture for this section. I believe that new players should use the resources provided directly by Wizards of the Coast for this kind of thing. Ender4511 ( talk) 14:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Ender4511 ( talk) 13:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I saw that someone added who leads each color to the color section. As it has no source, and isn't relevant, should it be removed? Waffle Attack11 ( talk) 18:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Regeneration (Magic: The Gathering) should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Regeneration (Magic: The Gathering) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Gerrard Capashen should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Gerrard Capashen until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Some of the guilds are misspelled in the diagram on this page. Specifically:
I'd recommend that the diagram be changed or removed, particularly since there is no other reference to the guilds, shards, or wedges on the page.
Cosinity ( talk) 20:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I copied over the information from the Writing and storyline section to the Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) article since that article needed improvement (per the MOS:INUNIVERSE tag and the 2016 AfD discussion). Given the size of this article (>123kB), it might be worth trimming the Writing and storyline section. I'm not the most familiar with the topic so I'm unsure which information should be prioritized in a smaller summary. Also, I think we should removed the table from Comics section since that information is in both the Multiverse article & the List of Magic: The Gathering novels. Thoughts? Sariel Xilo ( talk) 22:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Masem just reverted an edit of mine with the justification "having a couple points does not hurt". I actually think it does. Why do we want to have multiple historical reference points for Black Lotus auctions? The article is quite bloated as it is. I don't really see how an arbitrary second reference point improves the quality of the article. The first gives the reader an idea of how expensive Magic cards can be, but how does the second auction add significant additional insights to the reader? OdinFK ( talk) 17:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Why is it so hard to find out how many booster packs have been sold of a particular TCG? You search "Best Selling" and it only gives you current popularity 2601:346:C201:60C0:B5F2:DF40:9BD3:BCF2 ( talk) 23:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Interested editors may want to comment there, particularly regarding if anything is rescuable, perhaps by a merger here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The current image used is not the correct Magic card back. It's the back of a misprinted image file that was used for a specific print run of 4th Edition, which was then recalled. (More information here.) The difference is the top of the "A" in "Magic"; on the correct card back the top is lighter than the rest of the "A", while on the incorrect card back it's darker. The correct card back can be seen here, along with many other places. (If you have a Magic card, just pick it up and look at the back.)
The reason this incorrect image is so widespread is because Wizards of the Coast themselves often uses it accidentally in their official material, such as here and here. (Wizards has also done this with other wrong card backs too, like this one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSupernova ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone translate this image to English? It would be good for English article on Magic: The Gathering. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all! We should try to keep updating this article when they release new sets, or potentially link to a page that lists the expansions. This should serve as a reminder to future editors to be bold and add new sections if they visit this article and notice that newer additions have not yet been included! : ) Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) ( talk) 14:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing talking about Draft play; and there is no reference on game pieces except for the actual cards themselves. 2600:1700:93B0:6B50:BC6A:C67:7A27:7D40 ( talk) 08:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know the release day of mtg was at Gen Con Milwaukee in 93, so exactly 30 years ago. (19.08.1993 and not the 05.08.1993) So my question is: Where did the author of this article get the info about the 05.08.1993? FinksJuice ( talk) 12:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)