![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Magic: The Gathering rules article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Magic: The Gathering rules was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 23, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
"This article relies too much on references to primary sources." Due to the nature of this particular article, it would stand to reason that the primary source is, uh, the best source. While I understand the meaning behind the primary source rule here on Wikipedia, I would argue that the intention does not apply in this instance. Asking for alternate sources in an effort to maintain "quality" is ridiculous, as all alternate sources will be getting their information from the primary source in the first place. Amnion ( talk) 02:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Just curious when this changed. I would assume that it was a while ago, since I haven't been playing for a while. In the Alpha/Beta rules the first player would draw like normal...anyone know when this changed? In Defense of the Artist ( talk) 19:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Please investigate these destructive deletions by anon. The oldest is definitely harmful and I restored the deleted content.
MichaelSHoffman ( talk) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The article not explain that damage is 'healed' at end of turn. That seems important. Can't expect new players to just guess that it does... 71.232.131.59 ( talk) 03:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I went through the entire article with the intention of rewriting it, but heck, it was too damn good already. So I made more minor edits (quite a lot of those, though). Also, a small issue: there's currently no card displayed which demonstrates the Cost: Effect thing. I could put a card like that over by the Abilities section, but I think it would look kind of cluttered. Khaim, how about perhaps replacing the Yotian Soldier with some other 3-mana artifact that has an activated ability? Bottle Gnomes, Nim Replica, Disrupting Scepter, heck, even Staff of Domination if we want to include one that demonstrates the hell out of it. :)
I'd replace it myself, but I don't want to introduce Jpeg compression issues if I don't have to. -- Ashenai 10:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
"A randomly selected player decides which player will take the first turn." Is this confirmed? I think that a random player volunteers to offer his or her deck for "searching", then all players (include him/herself) select a random card from his/her deck. The player which picked the card with the greatest cost is the first to play, then playing continues clockwise. However, I think this is rather informal. Please let me know how other people play it, or what applies to tournaments. -- dionyziz 14:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC).
Here in Brisbane, Australia, we roll dice to determine seating order around the table, re-rolling for draws. Usually we use a twenty sided dice for Grand Melees, as most players have them for life counters. (Also high/low drawing from a normal playing card deck works) MEGANGIRL 203.18.196.66 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I am considering revising several areas for technical accuracy, but would first like to know if this page is intended to be a comprehensive and technically accurate rules guide, or a primer so people can understand the game. If the former, I will go ahead and make the necessary edits (most notably fixing some terminology and cleaning up the sections on Abilities and Keyword Abilities). If the latter, I will only correct the most obvious inaccuracies. Avedomni 00:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The Abilities section could probably use some work, yes. I'd agree with taking out the replacement effects and perhaps rewording the other sections. You're right that this section should probably be slightly more explicit about using the stack, although the section on the stack itself does a fair job of explaining it.
The lack of combat damage steps and divisions in the beginning and end of turn phase was intentional. Newer players don't really need to know, and I can barely think of a case where it's important in any case. Ashenai was right; this is a overview, not a comprehensive guide. It should be accurate wherever possible, but I tried to tend towards clarity over strict accuracy. -- Khaim 13:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
As for ability changes, i believe that more should be added, there are other abilities that are not mentioned but are attached to common, aswell as usefull cards. For example, for the card Firebolt, it has the ability of flashback where i have challenged people and they do not know what it means. Other abilities include morph, foresight and ect. Hopefully these can be added and explained.
In response to recent abilities added to that section, I feel they do not meet the above guidelines for inclusion. Horsemanship is limited to the Three Kingdoms set, which is years old and not widely played. Cycling has always appear with reminder text; kicker likewise explains itself. Phasing is almost a decade old. If the original editor would like to argue this, he's welcome to do so, but barring that I'm removing those abilities. -- Khaim 15:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Recent Edit Well, this section certainly grew again. Let's see...
-- Khaim 15:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I've removed listings for a whole bunch of abilities that aren't either common or recent. Bushido was last printed almost four years ago; fading is even worse, and seriously, phasing? We already have Magic: the Gathering keywords for providing a complete listing of abilities; this is a general listing of the most common and recent that shouldn't include such things. GrifterMage ( talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
what about the abilty of banding? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.0.31.37 (
talk)
02:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me how this article is not an instruction manual? It may not be the official instruction manual, but I don't see how it's not an instruction manual? -- Newt Ψ Φ 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
In order to make this article more encyclopeadic I really think you need to discuss the changes that have occured. Talk about Portal and it's purpose. Mention when EVERY addition occured. The section on Shadow doesn't tell me what set it started in? And you need to describe how WotC started changing basic things like Enchant Creature -> Enchament - Aura. Right now it is more instructional (still allowed as a description - you're not giving out advice or strategies, good job) and a LOT could be done to make it more encyclopeadic. No section on errata? - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article, if it is to exist, should cover the history and origin of the rules, rather than merely stating the rules themselves. All the information currently here can be found on Wizards' website. However, a Wikipedia article about the hostory of changes would be useful and unique. -- Trinite 23:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this article should be moved to wikibooks. Describing the rules is describing how to game works after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.172.112 ( talk) 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I also agree--this article has been recommended for deletion twice, and it keeps passing on the grounds that someone is going to fix it to be more encyclopedic. After five years it is clear that no one is willing to put in the effort to do so, so if anyone could nominate it again and link to this discussion, that would be great — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.131.66 ( talk) 12:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Being that this is the article on the rules/play structure of Magic, I'd assume that there would be some sort of reference to the Golden Rule, normally the first rule any new player should learn. --Insane 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there really should be a link to the Wizards' rule page.... 68.20.39.92 13:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
With respect to those who have contributed their time and expertise to this article, it does not belong on Wikipedia. An encyclopaedia entry should be about the subject; this article is the subject. While it gives us the rules of Magic, it tells us nothing about the rules of Magic. Except for the parts of it that violate NPOV. :)
An encyclopaedia entry about "Magic: The Gathering rules" should be based on, say, who created the rules, and when, and why. Which, I grant you, would be deeply trivial, but there you go.
In any case, the rules of the game change constantly, and the official M:TG website always carries the complete, current version. So even as a resource or manual, this article is of questionable value. Jack Garfield 08:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
What about the casual observer, who has seen the game, but wants to know how it is played? The main article doesn't tell, and the offical rules are too... long. This article is pretty good, in that respect, I think. - Freekee 04:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
71.179.7.141 recently rewrote the Timing section to remove all references to "speed". While he is correct that the term "speed" is technically inaccurate, I feel that newer players understand the mechanic better that way, rather than with a bunch of Magic jargon. Keeping in mind that this page should probably be informative at the sake of pure accuracy, I'm going to change that section back in a few days unless I hear a good reason not to. -- Khaim 01:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The only thing using "speed" accomplishes is to confuse players. And I know this, because I'm one of the people who has to continually correct the confusion it causes. It does not help them understand anything better, because the term does not apply in any way shape or form. Using it makes people think it does. Simply as that. If you need to use a term, use "play as a sorcery" or "play as an instant" in every place where you use "speed." You will find that carries all the meaning you intend, and does not produce confusion. JeffJor 18:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is not encylopaedic, as it only reflects the current rules. I came here looking to find out if interrupts were phased out with 6th edition, or in a previous revision, only to find no mention of them at all! This is not 1984; the rules have not always been this way. This article should reflect that. -- RealGrouchy 02:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to update the card type section to include Planeswalkers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.139.3 ( talk) 22:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a subtlety in the rules concerning what a creature can do on the turn it is brought into play. The article said that a creature may not "tap" on the turn it is brought into play. This is not true. According to the Magic Comprehensive Rules, 212.3f, a player may not use a creature's ability if it contains the "tap symbol" in its activation cost. This may sound like a picky distinction, but a "summoning sick" creature may be tapped to pay a cost under the "convoke" keyword. Further, with the release of the Lorwyn set, there are several abilities with the cost "Tap an [X creature] you control," which may be paid by tapping creatures with "summoning sickness." An example of such a card is Drowner of Secrets.
I've adjusted the article accordingly...feel free to adjust my wording.
Also, one final thing--it might be worthwhile to annotate the article with references to the Comprehensive Rules. Or maybe not. Just a suggestion.
Cpk1971 ( talk) 08:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
To further clarify:
A creature is under "summoning sickness" the turn it comes into play, and remains under this effect until the start of the controller's next turn. Normally, this means you bring it into play, and the start of your next turn it loses the sickness. However, if you take control of my creature during the same turn I summoned it and it remains under your control when your turn starts, the sickness is gone (you don't have to wait until the start of MY next turn).
Also, the rule currently states specifically that you may not play abilities with either the 'tap' OR 'untap' symbols **in the activation cost**. (and it can't attack) However, summoning sickness does not prevent the card from being tapped through other means. For example, the "Ancient Silverback" has the activated ability of "(1green) : Regenerate ancient silverback". Since the tap symbol is not part of the activation *cost*, you CAN regenerate it, even though the *effect* of the ability's regeneration causes the card to tap.
Other spells or effects which require you to "Tap X target creatures", for example, as part of their activation cost CAN still use a creature with summoning sickness- the sickness only affects the creature's OWN abilities.
In regards to old sets which predated the (tap) symbol: Older sets did not use the tap or untap symbol. Instead they read verbatim similar to this "Tap to deal 1 damage to target creature" or "Tap [creature's own name] to deal 1 damage to target creature." Although they do not technically contain the (tap) symbol, errata for compatibility purposes says those type of cards should be considered as "(tap symbol) : Deal 1 damage to target creature". In a few rare cases out of print cards will not clearly indicate if the tapping is part of the activation cost, or the effect. In these situations the specific card errata should be consulted for how to handle them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.56.58 ( talk) 16:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I added some things about Equipments because the text lacked mentions that you can equip only your creatures (on the contrary Auras can enchant all valid target creatures). Maybe Fortifications should be added (I haven't purchased any so I leave it for now) and a simple word for Living Weapons (equipments that come in battlefield with a 0/0 germ creature preattached to them). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Κλειδοκράτωρ ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Also, even if equipments cannot be 'unequipped' as a single action they can be 'unequipped' as part of 'equipping' another creature. Thus when you equip the other creature the former loses the equipment. Maybe a rephrase is needed here.-- Κλειδοκράτωρ ( talk) 17:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Having the Lowryn, Shadowmoor and Alara block keywords in the list is rather unnecessary if none of the other keywords are present; standard core set keywords should probably stay, but block-specific ones shouldn't be allowed as it would be an incomplete list. 122.106.222.64 ( talk) 06:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw under the Lorwyn block, the Prowl ability is not mentioned. Prowl is a relatively confusing ability, considering turn cycle timing, to those who are not well-versed in the official rules. I think it may be worth mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.218.172 ( talk) 21:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that this article is tagged with "It relies largely or entirely upon a single source.". This should not be an issue in this case as Wizards *is* the only real authorative source (Except for maybe the DCI, I'm up for discussion on that) 78.73.39.138 ( talk) 10:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see the big tag on top of the article removed. While I don't think the "single source" thing is a valid issue, I agree that the article needs cleanup. To that end, I've gone through the entire article, clarifying things, removing marginal/superfluous stuff (Fortifications, for example, really don't need to be mentioned, as long as there is a single card representing them,) and generally fixing bad English. I've also taken the opportunity to make the article (hopefully) fully M10-compliant.
I'd appreciate someone looking over the article and mentioning anything that might still need to be done. Thanks! -- Ashenai ( talk) 13:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm tagging the article for expansion needed after the most recent AfD. This article needs at least two more things to be as good as our Rules of chess article. It needs a discussion about how the rules have changed over time, preferably with secondary sources that offer commentary on the reasoning and impact of these rule changes. It also needs tournament rules, and a small summary of Magic: The Gathering formats, which are definitely related to this article. Unfortunately, I currently exclusively edit Wikipedia from my workplace, and my work network blocks access to all references I would need to make these expansions myself. I hope someone else can step up to the plate on this one and make this a much better article. Fieari ( talk) 02:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The manna examples were excellent. I would really like to see a link to an example card for each of the 4 ability card types? systemBuilder ( talk) 00:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Since AfD isn't supposed to be cleanup, I'm going to outline the areas that I think still need the most work. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering rules (4th nomination) for original comments on cleanup.
Please let me know your thoughts. Feel free to mark anything as done if you tackle a section. Thanks! Sariel Xilo ( talk) 19:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Over the last week or so I've been trimming and adding sources to this article. At this point there are three citation needed tags and four primary source inline tags outside the history section, and everything else is cited to secondary sources.
I think all of the three unsourced claims outside of history can just be removed, as none feel especially important, but I'd like a second opinion before doing so.
For the primary-sourced claims outside of history, I may have gone a little overboard in the formats section, since the things being cited are what Wizards of the Coast does. If you agree, feel free to remove the tag.
@ Sariel Xilo and Mindmatrix: Thoughts on the above? Can any of you find secondary sources I can't that support those claims? * Pppery * it has begun... 04:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, assuming that claim that
[he] has written nearly 500 strategy articles for [...] Inquest Magazine, which I haven't tried to check, is true. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
At this point I've gotten the article down to the point where everything is cited, and almost everything is cited to a secondary source. Cc Piotrus as original AfD nominator. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lee Vilenski ( talk · contribs) 11:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.
If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)
I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.
Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs)
Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.
The Rules of Magic: The Gathering were originally developed by the game's creator, Richard Garfield, and accompanied the first version of the game in 1993. The rules of Magic have been changed frequently over the years by the manufacturer, Wizards of the Coast, mostly in minor ways. However, major rules overhauls have also been done a few times.- this whole paragraph just sounds like noise. If someone isn't sure what Magic: The Gathering is, they'd have no idea what you were talking about. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Magic: The Gathering rules article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Magic: The Gathering rules was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 23, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
"This article relies too much on references to primary sources." Due to the nature of this particular article, it would stand to reason that the primary source is, uh, the best source. While I understand the meaning behind the primary source rule here on Wikipedia, I would argue that the intention does not apply in this instance. Asking for alternate sources in an effort to maintain "quality" is ridiculous, as all alternate sources will be getting their information from the primary source in the first place. Amnion ( talk) 02:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Just curious when this changed. I would assume that it was a while ago, since I haven't been playing for a while. In the Alpha/Beta rules the first player would draw like normal...anyone know when this changed? In Defense of the Artist ( talk) 19:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Please investigate these destructive deletions by anon. The oldest is definitely harmful and I restored the deleted content.
MichaelSHoffman ( talk) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The article not explain that damage is 'healed' at end of turn. That seems important. Can't expect new players to just guess that it does... 71.232.131.59 ( talk) 03:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I went through the entire article with the intention of rewriting it, but heck, it was too damn good already. So I made more minor edits (quite a lot of those, though). Also, a small issue: there's currently no card displayed which demonstrates the Cost: Effect thing. I could put a card like that over by the Abilities section, but I think it would look kind of cluttered. Khaim, how about perhaps replacing the Yotian Soldier with some other 3-mana artifact that has an activated ability? Bottle Gnomes, Nim Replica, Disrupting Scepter, heck, even Staff of Domination if we want to include one that demonstrates the hell out of it. :)
I'd replace it myself, but I don't want to introduce Jpeg compression issues if I don't have to. -- Ashenai 10:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
"A randomly selected player decides which player will take the first turn." Is this confirmed? I think that a random player volunteers to offer his or her deck for "searching", then all players (include him/herself) select a random card from his/her deck. The player which picked the card with the greatest cost is the first to play, then playing continues clockwise. However, I think this is rather informal. Please let me know how other people play it, or what applies to tournaments. -- dionyziz 14:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC).
Here in Brisbane, Australia, we roll dice to determine seating order around the table, re-rolling for draws. Usually we use a twenty sided dice for Grand Melees, as most players have them for life counters. (Also high/low drawing from a normal playing card deck works) MEGANGIRL 203.18.196.66 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I am considering revising several areas for technical accuracy, but would first like to know if this page is intended to be a comprehensive and technically accurate rules guide, or a primer so people can understand the game. If the former, I will go ahead and make the necessary edits (most notably fixing some terminology and cleaning up the sections on Abilities and Keyword Abilities). If the latter, I will only correct the most obvious inaccuracies. Avedomni 00:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The Abilities section could probably use some work, yes. I'd agree with taking out the replacement effects and perhaps rewording the other sections. You're right that this section should probably be slightly more explicit about using the stack, although the section on the stack itself does a fair job of explaining it.
The lack of combat damage steps and divisions in the beginning and end of turn phase was intentional. Newer players don't really need to know, and I can barely think of a case where it's important in any case. Ashenai was right; this is a overview, not a comprehensive guide. It should be accurate wherever possible, but I tried to tend towards clarity over strict accuracy. -- Khaim 13:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
As for ability changes, i believe that more should be added, there are other abilities that are not mentioned but are attached to common, aswell as usefull cards. For example, for the card Firebolt, it has the ability of flashback where i have challenged people and they do not know what it means. Other abilities include morph, foresight and ect. Hopefully these can be added and explained.
In response to recent abilities added to that section, I feel they do not meet the above guidelines for inclusion. Horsemanship is limited to the Three Kingdoms set, which is years old and not widely played. Cycling has always appear with reminder text; kicker likewise explains itself. Phasing is almost a decade old. If the original editor would like to argue this, he's welcome to do so, but barring that I'm removing those abilities. -- Khaim 15:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Recent Edit Well, this section certainly grew again. Let's see...
-- Khaim 15:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I've removed listings for a whole bunch of abilities that aren't either common or recent. Bushido was last printed almost four years ago; fading is even worse, and seriously, phasing? We already have Magic: the Gathering keywords for providing a complete listing of abilities; this is a general listing of the most common and recent that shouldn't include such things. GrifterMage ( talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
what about the abilty of banding? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.0.31.37 (
talk)
02:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me how this article is not an instruction manual? It may not be the official instruction manual, but I don't see how it's not an instruction manual? -- Newt Ψ Φ 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
In order to make this article more encyclopeadic I really think you need to discuss the changes that have occured. Talk about Portal and it's purpose. Mention when EVERY addition occured. The section on Shadow doesn't tell me what set it started in? And you need to describe how WotC started changing basic things like Enchant Creature -> Enchament - Aura. Right now it is more instructional (still allowed as a description - you're not giving out advice or strategies, good job) and a LOT could be done to make it more encyclopeadic. No section on errata? - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article, if it is to exist, should cover the history and origin of the rules, rather than merely stating the rules themselves. All the information currently here can be found on Wizards' website. However, a Wikipedia article about the hostory of changes would be useful and unique. -- Trinite 23:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this article should be moved to wikibooks. Describing the rules is describing how to game works after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.172.112 ( talk) 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I also agree--this article has been recommended for deletion twice, and it keeps passing on the grounds that someone is going to fix it to be more encyclopedic. After five years it is clear that no one is willing to put in the effort to do so, so if anyone could nominate it again and link to this discussion, that would be great — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.131.66 ( talk) 12:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Being that this is the article on the rules/play structure of Magic, I'd assume that there would be some sort of reference to the Golden Rule, normally the first rule any new player should learn. --Insane 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there really should be a link to the Wizards' rule page.... 68.20.39.92 13:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
With respect to those who have contributed their time and expertise to this article, it does not belong on Wikipedia. An encyclopaedia entry should be about the subject; this article is the subject. While it gives us the rules of Magic, it tells us nothing about the rules of Magic. Except for the parts of it that violate NPOV. :)
An encyclopaedia entry about "Magic: The Gathering rules" should be based on, say, who created the rules, and when, and why. Which, I grant you, would be deeply trivial, but there you go.
In any case, the rules of the game change constantly, and the official M:TG website always carries the complete, current version. So even as a resource or manual, this article is of questionable value. Jack Garfield 08:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
What about the casual observer, who has seen the game, but wants to know how it is played? The main article doesn't tell, and the offical rules are too... long. This article is pretty good, in that respect, I think. - Freekee 04:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
71.179.7.141 recently rewrote the Timing section to remove all references to "speed". While he is correct that the term "speed" is technically inaccurate, I feel that newer players understand the mechanic better that way, rather than with a bunch of Magic jargon. Keeping in mind that this page should probably be informative at the sake of pure accuracy, I'm going to change that section back in a few days unless I hear a good reason not to. -- Khaim 01:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The only thing using "speed" accomplishes is to confuse players. And I know this, because I'm one of the people who has to continually correct the confusion it causes. It does not help them understand anything better, because the term does not apply in any way shape or form. Using it makes people think it does. Simply as that. If you need to use a term, use "play as a sorcery" or "play as an instant" in every place where you use "speed." You will find that carries all the meaning you intend, and does not produce confusion. JeffJor 18:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is not encylopaedic, as it only reflects the current rules. I came here looking to find out if interrupts were phased out with 6th edition, or in a previous revision, only to find no mention of them at all! This is not 1984; the rules have not always been this way. This article should reflect that. -- RealGrouchy 02:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to update the card type section to include Planeswalkers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.139.3 ( talk) 22:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a subtlety in the rules concerning what a creature can do on the turn it is brought into play. The article said that a creature may not "tap" on the turn it is brought into play. This is not true. According to the Magic Comprehensive Rules, 212.3f, a player may not use a creature's ability if it contains the "tap symbol" in its activation cost. This may sound like a picky distinction, but a "summoning sick" creature may be tapped to pay a cost under the "convoke" keyword. Further, with the release of the Lorwyn set, there are several abilities with the cost "Tap an [X creature] you control," which may be paid by tapping creatures with "summoning sickness." An example of such a card is Drowner of Secrets.
I've adjusted the article accordingly...feel free to adjust my wording.
Also, one final thing--it might be worthwhile to annotate the article with references to the Comprehensive Rules. Or maybe not. Just a suggestion.
Cpk1971 ( talk) 08:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
To further clarify:
A creature is under "summoning sickness" the turn it comes into play, and remains under this effect until the start of the controller's next turn. Normally, this means you bring it into play, and the start of your next turn it loses the sickness. However, if you take control of my creature during the same turn I summoned it and it remains under your control when your turn starts, the sickness is gone (you don't have to wait until the start of MY next turn).
Also, the rule currently states specifically that you may not play abilities with either the 'tap' OR 'untap' symbols **in the activation cost**. (and it can't attack) However, summoning sickness does not prevent the card from being tapped through other means. For example, the "Ancient Silverback" has the activated ability of "(1green) : Regenerate ancient silverback". Since the tap symbol is not part of the activation *cost*, you CAN regenerate it, even though the *effect* of the ability's regeneration causes the card to tap.
Other spells or effects which require you to "Tap X target creatures", for example, as part of their activation cost CAN still use a creature with summoning sickness- the sickness only affects the creature's OWN abilities.
In regards to old sets which predated the (tap) symbol: Older sets did not use the tap or untap symbol. Instead they read verbatim similar to this "Tap to deal 1 damage to target creature" or "Tap [creature's own name] to deal 1 damage to target creature." Although they do not technically contain the (tap) symbol, errata for compatibility purposes says those type of cards should be considered as "(tap symbol) : Deal 1 damage to target creature". In a few rare cases out of print cards will not clearly indicate if the tapping is part of the activation cost, or the effect. In these situations the specific card errata should be consulted for how to handle them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.56.58 ( talk) 16:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I added some things about Equipments because the text lacked mentions that you can equip only your creatures (on the contrary Auras can enchant all valid target creatures). Maybe Fortifications should be added (I haven't purchased any so I leave it for now) and a simple word for Living Weapons (equipments that come in battlefield with a 0/0 germ creature preattached to them). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Κλειδοκράτωρ ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Also, even if equipments cannot be 'unequipped' as a single action they can be 'unequipped' as part of 'equipping' another creature. Thus when you equip the other creature the former loses the equipment. Maybe a rephrase is needed here.-- Κλειδοκράτωρ ( talk) 17:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Having the Lowryn, Shadowmoor and Alara block keywords in the list is rather unnecessary if none of the other keywords are present; standard core set keywords should probably stay, but block-specific ones shouldn't be allowed as it would be an incomplete list. 122.106.222.64 ( talk) 06:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw under the Lorwyn block, the Prowl ability is not mentioned. Prowl is a relatively confusing ability, considering turn cycle timing, to those who are not well-versed in the official rules. I think it may be worth mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.218.172 ( talk) 21:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that this article is tagged with "It relies largely or entirely upon a single source.". This should not be an issue in this case as Wizards *is* the only real authorative source (Except for maybe the DCI, I'm up for discussion on that) 78.73.39.138 ( talk) 10:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see the big tag on top of the article removed. While I don't think the "single source" thing is a valid issue, I agree that the article needs cleanup. To that end, I've gone through the entire article, clarifying things, removing marginal/superfluous stuff (Fortifications, for example, really don't need to be mentioned, as long as there is a single card representing them,) and generally fixing bad English. I've also taken the opportunity to make the article (hopefully) fully M10-compliant.
I'd appreciate someone looking over the article and mentioning anything that might still need to be done. Thanks! -- Ashenai ( talk) 13:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm tagging the article for expansion needed after the most recent AfD. This article needs at least two more things to be as good as our Rules of chess article. It needs a discussion about how the rules have changed over time, preferably with secondary sources that offer commentary on the reasoning and impact of these rule changes. It also needs tournament rules, and a small summary of Magic: The Gathering formats, which are definitely related to this article. Unfortunately, I currently exclusively edit Wikipedia from my workplace, and my work network blocks access to all references I would need to make these expansions myself. I hope someone else can step up to the plate on this one and make this a much better article. Fieari ( talk) 02:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The manna examples were excellent. I would really like to see a link to an example card for each of the 4 ability card types? systemBuilder ( talk) 00:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Since AfD isn't supposed to be cleanup, I'm going to outline the areas that I think still need the most work. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering rules (4th nomination) for original comments on cleanup.
Please let me know your thoughts. Feel free to mark anything as done if you tackle a section. Thanks! Sariel Xilo ( talk) 19:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Over the last week or so I've been trimming and adding sources to this article. At this point there are three citation needed tags and four primary source inline tags outside the history section, and everything else is cited to secondary sources.
I think all of the three unsourced claims outside of history can just be removed, as none feel especially important, but I'd like a second opinion before doing so.
For the primary-sourced claims outside of history, I may have gone a little overboard in the formats section, since the things being cited are what Wizards of the Coast does. If you agree, feel free to remove the tag.
@ Sariel Xilo and Mindmatrix: Thoughts on the above? Can any of you find secondary sources I can't that support those claims? * Pppery * it has begun... 04:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, assuming that claim that
[he] has written nearly 500 strategy articles for [...] Inquest Magazine, which I haven't tried to check, is true. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
At this point I've gotten the article down to the point where everything is cited, and almost everything is cited to a secondary source. Cc Piotrus as original AfD nominator. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lee Vilenski ( talk · contribs) 11:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.
If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)
I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.
Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs)
Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.
The Rules of Magic: The Gathering were originally developed by the game's creator, Richard Garfield, and accompanied the first version of the game in 1993. The rules of Magic have been changed frequently over the years by the manufacturer, Wizards of the Coast, mostly in minor ways. However, major rules overhauls have also been done a few times.- this whole paragraph just sounds like noise. If someone isn't sure what Magic: The Gathering is, they'd have no idea what you were talking about. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)