Talk:Magic: The Gathering/Archive 2

Controversial aspects
I would like to open some discussions about the following two topics and posts. I know what i have posted, may sound bias, however it is what i feel, and alot of people that i know feel aswell. It is probabily the main reasons why we have quit the game, and never came back to it.

My original posts were:

Many old users simply steered away from coming back to the game simply because the amount of new abilities eliminates the usefullness of older cards. In addition, the quality of the abilities of the cards have sharply fallen in contrast to its previous editions. Many of the new cards are considered as useless, and not even worth putting in decks. New rules in Australia prevents some of the old favourite cards, and playing styles to be used in Official Tournaments.
 * Downfall of Game Mechanics
 * New Restrictions to Tournament Legal Cards (Australia)

I have recently recieved an PM asking me to provide some information, especially on the second statement. I can't provide some evidence atm, (at uni, in a hurry) However, one main change i remember in the sanctioned tournament (in Sydney Australia) was the banning of the blue card, Counter Spell in type II card lists. I havn't played/followed magics cards for about 3 years now (i think, the newest card i got is form the exdous set). Many Blue deck users would know, Counter Spell is one of the most powerful blue cards. The removal of this card, render some decks underpowered or useless (Counter-Spell Decks). Thus the mechanics statement.

As for useless cards, comparing say the Common cards of Ice Age, the lowest of the lowest class cards. Although they do nothing, they dont have that much of a draw back, and some are put to use into decks such as Goblin decks. Compared to the newer Editions, their lowest of the lowest cards are not even worth putting in to a deck, they dont do anything.

here's a FAQ from a guy from university of Sydney about the various aspects of magic in Aust. http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~edney/faq.html

NeoDeGenero 06:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the Controversy section should also include information about the past practice (perhaps current too, I have not played in many years) of releasing poorly worded / inappropriately thought out "Broken" cards that required numerous errata.207.69.137.41 13:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)lasalle202
 * True, anyone else have an opinion on this? NeoDeGenero 07:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. How to put this.  These are...  extremely subjective complaints.  To put it another way: Magic is a game that changes over time.  It's a truism that some people will like the changes, and others won't.  I mean, you give the example of "Counterspell decks," but for there to be such a thing as substantive change, of course some deck ideas will rise and fall in power over time.  Counterspell decks are certainly still legal for casual and Vintage play, so if you enjoy them, it's not like they're being taken from you.


 * To put it another way, if you accept the fact that new and different sets are an inherent part of Magic, individual changes can be controversial ("Bring back Counterspell!" "Don't print Skullclamp!"), but rejecting change as a whole is not so much a controversial aspect as it is a simple reason to dislike the game.  To look at it from the other angle, Chess does not have as a controversial aspect that new pieces are not released each year and the game is static, or Football a controversial aspect that it's a physical game and some people prefer strictly mental ones.


 * As for lasalle's point, that isn't really a contoversial aspect so much as a fact of the quality of the game itself. If the New York Knicks are horrible this year, that isn't controversial, although it may be a reason not to buy a ticket.  Same with Magic sets; it reflects poorly on them if they are badly designed, but I don't think there are any "pro-bad design" camps.  Everyone agrees that new Magic sets should be well-designed, so there's no controversy.


 * While there are certainly interesting disputes within these topics ("Was Affinity really overpowered?" "Should WotC bring back more classic cards?"), they probably aren't suitable for a general audience encylopedic entry. SnowFire 20:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Page Size and Touchups
I recently brought the page size down from 43k to 40k though it is still out of hand. i touched it up a little in areas that wern't explained enough or things that wern't there. I also deleted some text or shorted some that didn't need to be there or was excessive. the page size is getting out of hand and I have done all I can.

Em dashes (looks like &mdash; / entered in the source code as &mp;emdash;) are not a very commonly supported escape code. They tend to show up as &amp;#8212; in older browsers, so I have edited those I saw out of this article. Are there any good reasons to keep them? --Vishahu 20:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Good work, FAC note
Good work, all who have worked on this article. I am nominating it for FA status - keep up the good work, listen to the comments and I am sure it will make it! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Card pics
The caption says "Magic: the Gathering cards are designated by various types and colors," but if I were unfamiliar with the game I'd have a hard time distinguishing between the colors of the artifact cards and the land card, or between the green card and the black card. Is it possible to get clearer pics, or perhaps newer editions of the same cards, with brighter backgrounds?

addiction
I was surprised to see no mention of the addiction issues of MTG. Though these kinds of issues hardly make MTG unique among games, I think it is worthy of some mention, if only that the nickname "cardboard crack" is almost a synonym for MTG amongst its fans. --Paraphelion 07:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * All hobbies are "addictive" to their participants. Unless you can say Magic has a unique quality in that regards, then it's better to leave out.  "cardboard crack" is used among many card games, plus it's a little sub-trivial.  We can't include everything about the game without losing focus in the article (which is already a bit too long). -- Netoholic @ 06:51, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)


 * Of course all hobbies can be addictive, however few have pervasive nicknames and the term probably originated from Magic, and few have a reputation for addiction as widespread as Magic. If you search on google for "cardboard crack", most of the links refer to or involve Magic. This of course has some bearing on the Profit Motive vs. Game Design, which I do think is very relevant, and which you removed without reason. --Paraphelion 14:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I gave a reason for removing the Profit section, if you'll read further down on this page. -- Netoholic @ 15:46, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

Eternal Formats
Dear Netoholic, My edit about Eternal formats was anon because I was logged out and I did not notice. On the DCI Magic: The Gathering Floor Rules for Magic: the Gathering tournaments: http://www.wizards.com/dci/downloads/Magic_FLR_20dec04_EN.pdf

In point 101:

Format and Ratings Categories

The DCI sanctions the following formats. They may be sanctioned as single, two-person team, or three-person team events.

Constructed Formats

Standard

Extended

Block

Eternal Formats

Vintage

Legacy (formerly Type 1.5)

Limited Formats

Sealed Deck

Booster Draft

Rochester Draft

The DCI produces the following ratings categories:

Constructed (includes Standard, Extended, and Block formats)

Eternal (includes Vintage and Legacy formats)

Limited (includes all Limited formats)

Team Constructed (includes all Constructed team formats)

Team Limited (includes all Limited team formats)

So even if a pre-constructed deck is needed for Eternal Format Tournaments, the format is not included in the constuctred format category by the DCI. So I will revert the article to my previous version. Pharotek 04:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Please do not confuse things. True, "Eternal" is not a DCI Constructed event. The distinction used in this article though is not the DCI rules, it is between Limited (receive packs, open, build) and Constructed (bring your own prepared deck) general types of play.  Please feel free to detail your point about the formats at Duelists' Convocation International, but keep the distinction in this article as it is. -- Netoholic @ 06:32, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

I just think the info in the article should be correct and precise. This section isn't neither. Pharotek 16:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure it is, it describes two types of play – constructed and limited. "Eternal" is a constructed type of play (pepared deck), even though it's not a "DCI Constructed" tournament format.  The section is very accurate in what it describes.  The extra detail is nice, just not in this article (but very good in the DCI one). -- Netoholic @ 16:13, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

Well this article is oversized, so I agree the extra info should go to the DCI article. I'm not quite sure how to squeeze the info on the DCI article without repeating the whole section. What do you suggest? Maybe move the whole section to the DCI article and then add the detail about eternal? Pharotek 16:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I've made a bit of a split. The  specific formats are now detailed in the DCI article, and a lighter mention is made of the basic play types here. -- Netoholic @ 17:31, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

Great work!!! Pharotek 18:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Profit Motive vs. Game Design ?

 * Profit Motive vs. Game Design
 * Magic game rules have expanded greatly since release of its first edition which some claim is done for no other reason than to justify the creation of new card sets. This of course exploits a collector's desire to own the complete set of cards, but also, players may find they need the new cards to remain competitive. Therefore, there is some concern over whether or not game balance and other game design elements are comprimised for greater profit.

I removed the above because it reads as very harshly POV (terms like "exploits" and "some claim") and semantically attributes such a motive to the "game" rather than the company. I would think every company makes changs to its product lines in order to continue to sell and make profit, so I don't see the point of this section. Can someone give a specific example of a game rule being expanded "no other reason than to justify the creation of new card sets" or "for greater profit"? -- Netoholic @ 06:39, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * Good point about the game vs company, I do think that should be made clear, though, of course, what the company decides to do to the rules affects the game. A good example is phasing.  As I understood it, WotC did not make some of its new rules part of competitive play specifically because they knew it upset a lot of hard core competitive players - but I am not up on this aspect of the game as much.  As you of course know, Magic is different than other games, such as chess or poker, where the companies who make the products don't also have total control over the rule set and where the rules have been set for so long that few would take seriously a company trying to change them for competitive play.  There are of course chess variants and chess-derived games such as Archon and 3-D Chess, however their creation does not demand a purchase by competitive chess players to maintain an edge, unlike new Magic card sets.  I would think that this is one of the factors, albeit a small one compared to other factors, that keep Magic from being as competitive as a game such as Poker; though as opposed to the Profit Motive vs Game Design issue, this is a personal view that I have not really heard from many other Magic players.  It is true that this is a problem of nearly all CCG games, and has probably been a factor to several CCG's loss of popularity and increase in barriers to entry.  I should note that I have not kept up with the game in 6-8 years.. so perhaps this is a problem that, at least in part, has been reconsiled since then?  I do know that this issue was in the minds of many of the more dedicated Magic players, though it's not like they did or could do anything about it, other than stop participating. In theory there could be political aspects of changing the rules, for instance, in response to a certain player's strategy style, though I have no heard of this happening, but if it had, I would think that also would be worth mentioning.  I do know there have been cards banned from competitive play, but I know nothing of the circumstances involved.  --Paraphelion 16:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, after re-reading the Expense section in the Controversy section, I see that it comes close to discussing this point, and that to save space, brief mention might be made of this issue there. --Paraphelion 16:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rules Variants
There are way too many of them on this page. Variant rules are a much smaller part of Magic than this article would have me believe.


 * I've been noting that too. I've significantly chopped that into a reasonable size. -- Netoholic @ 22:51, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. Whenever I play the game we normally go with the original version. Although perhaps a mention of the Tribal varient could be made? (all creatures must be of the same 'tribe' or type, e.g. Wizard, and at least 1/3rd of the deck is creatures). On a similar note, should Limited decks (sealed and Drafts) be added to Deck Construction? -- Zark the Damned 23:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Info on Limited is actually under Organized play. -- Netoholic @ 23:22, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)


 * Ahh, didn't see it there, I was too busy looking at the deck varients and the deck construction sections. -- Zark the Damned 23:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Methods of playing Magic: The Gathering Online
On the 9th March, the following was removed from this Wiki, with the reason that it was 'to remove long strings of shameless self-promotion.':

(start) Since the advent of the Internet, Magic players have wanted to play games online with various opponents. Wizards of the Coast's early attempts to produce an online version of the game consisted of the products: Magic The Gathering: Duels Of The Planeswalkers and Magic: The Gathering® Interactive Encyclopedia. After Wizards ceased to support these products, several groups game together to create OCTGN, Apprentice, and Magic Work Station. These programs are not officially supported by Wizards of the Coast although they do allow for online play for free. The official product of Wizards of the Coast's online software is the Magic: The Gathering Online product. Controversial from its inception, players purchase digital packs of Magic: The Gathering Online cards and can play or trade with these cards. The large majority of Magic players use the MTGO system to play games of Magic: The Gathering online, however, communities do exist that allow for the playing of games online for free. (end)

Which part of that is shameless self promotion? I see it as an interesting bit of information about computer versions of Magic. Perhaps a bit could be added about the Battlegrounds game on PC and XBox too, or perhaps a new entry should be made for Online playing of Magic?

Other sections were also removed, including links to OCTGN (effectively a successor to MTGPlay, which certainly used to be in the article) and some links to interesting articles on the net about Modo (why it is unfair to pay real money for virtual products.

When I inquired about why OCTGN should be removed, and other games like GCCG and Workstation stay, I was informed that 'OCTGN did not have a large enough user base' - however, this is not true, as the community is at least as large (and probably a lot larger) as GCCG.

(Sorry if this is out of place, I'm still new to commenting stuff)

Zark the Damned 19:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * All this about OCTGN is just shameless self-promotion, and has had to be removed multiple times from this article. OCTGN is effectively non-notable in the community, and we can't give voice to every single new piece of software that allows Magic play.  Particularly when those involved in making that software are the ones promoting it here. -- Netoholic @ 19:59, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)


 * OK, so OCTGN is not well known at the moment in your community. That still doesn't address my other point about the interesting bits being removed, like the history of Magic Online gaming. -- Zark the Damned 20:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You're kidding, right? That section about online play was added to the "Controversial aspects" section. Effectively, you were saying "Boy, look how AWFUL online play has been. Did I mention this great new software called OCTGN?".  Gimme a break. -- Netoholic @ 21:04, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)


 * You clearly haven't actually read the edit you just referred to. OCTGN is mentioned ONCE, in amongst the other methods for playing online. You just saw the OCTGN and felt threatened by it. And btw, where has mention ever been made about how 'great' OCTGN is? As opposed to the 'Powerful' MTGWorkstation or the GCCG which can 'play all games, ever'?


 * OK, then, If I need to go into more... That one edit, taken together with 7 other ones and the creation of an OCTGN article, turned this all into nothing more than an advertisement for your software.  Add it again, and it will be removed as spam. -- Netoholic @ 22:05, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)


 * Excuse me... MY software? I'm not even on the dev team. I admit I use it, but I am sure that whoever added GCCG and Workstation probably added those too. Yes, adding an article about OCTGN was a bit far, but I had nothing to do with that. But back onto the subject at hand, the bit I quoted individually is not an advert, but IS interesting, with or without OCTGN mentioned. Unless of course you are too paranoid about OCTGN taking over the world and feel the need to brutally surpress all knowledge of it? -- Zark the Damned 22:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I realise I was getting a bit hot tempered and shouldn't have made that last edit. I have calmed down now, and I agree that adding a whole article about OCTGN was a bad move by Mohan2005, and that together with the other links would be considered spammy. However, I still feel that the That section about online play was interesting and a useful addition, even without the other parts. I don't want any hard feelings, and realise that OCTGN was kinda piled on deep. But I also feel that OCTGN should have a place alongside GCCG and Workstation in the online play section, as it is the predecessor of MTGPlay, which was the first real online play tool (MTGIE's online play was kinda crippled).


 * No problem. If OCTGN is that good and well-known, eventually someone will add a reference to it.  It's all about the fact that we can't fit everything in here. -- Netoholic @ 23:22, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)


 * Strange. I believe I fall under the category 'somebody'... Yet you deleted it. A little confused on the measurement stick you use. GCCG is such an obscurity that i'm surprised it stands on the page, while OCTGN is removed. Just think it over.


 * Another piece of software which allows online Magic: the Gathering play is the ancient Microprose PC game. The "Duels of the Planeswalkers" expansion added an online component called "Manalink". This component relied on the now-defunct TEN service, but the (unofficial) 1.3.2 patch adds TCP/IP connectivity as well as Windows XP support. You're limited to the cards that were available when the Microprose games were released, but one key feature of Manalink that every other online Magic: the Gathering program lacks is the Magic: the Gathering rules engine incorporated into the game.

Elf Deck
Someone has made an Elf Deck article. Can someone who knows MTG take a look at it and decide what should be done with it (keep and expand, merge somewhere, or delete). It was marked as speedy (no doubt as it appears a lot like vanity) but a brief google shows a fairly broad use of the term. Comments there, please. Thanks. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 21:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, strategy suggestions aren't really appropriate for here. Really, this is just one of hundreds of deck types, none of which is likely to meet inclusion standards.  Perhaps we should refer him to Wikibooks to create a strategy guide, or probably better to the MTG Archive wiki. -- Netoholic @ 08:24, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)


 * Expansion sets are already on the line, and deck types are almost certainly not notable enough. There have been hundreds of deck archetypes in the game's history, probably scores at least as notable as the elf deck. More emerge every year, often notable only to the small subset of players who play competatively. Including these is untennable. Plus, as anyone magic-literate could tell you, that's not even a good decklist. The other content appears to represent vanity. Cool Hand Luke  10:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I also believe it is pretty ridiculous to start submitting individual decks. Wikipedia is and should remain an encyclopedia, not a structured table of contents of the entire internet. In this particular case, there is no such thing as 'the' Elf Deck so this is just one of hundreds possible elf decks. I think it would be better to extend the Magic article itself to have a listing with short explanation of the most common creature types like Elfs, Goblins, etc...

Game Complexity
The 'fight' between Slobad and Netaholic about game complexity is getting out of hand. Every few days, Slobad changes the complexity to 'Extremely high', and then Netaholic reverts it to 'Medium'.

Is some sort of a compromise in order? I understand that some people will find the game very easy to comprehend, others find it complex (I would guess Slobad is one of the latter, hence the repeated changes mentioned above).

Would 'Medium to High' be an acceptable compromise for the complexity? It is extremely variable depending on the individuals and decks involved (straightforward aggro beatdown tends to be a lot simpler than intricate abusive combos, for example).

Nothing personal, it's just a tad annoying to see the history full of 'Slobad changed difficulty, Netaholic reverted difficulty'.

Zark the Damned 17:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is what I wrote Slobad:
 * Stop changing the Complexity to anything but "Medium". This level, and the other information, is mased on the basic game (the "Core Set"), just like for other games.  Of course, expansions make it more complex, but that is not what the infobox is referring to.  If you disagree with this long-standing version, please raise a conversation on the talk page."
 * -- Netoholic @ 18:04, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)


 * I agree with those sentiments entirely. The basic game is medium (personally, I would say 'easy' but I play a lot of card games and rpgs etc, some of which are much more complex). However, I would still like to see Slobad's side of the story.
 * Zark the Damned 18:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if Magic is medium complexity, what kind of game has high complexity then? There are not many games that have as many rules as Magic. Grue 18:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ever played Jyhad (now Vampire: The Eternal Struggle) or Bloodwars? The Magic core game is way easier than those. Remember, the 'medium' complexity represents the core game (currently 8th ed), it is accepted that expansions give additional complexity.
 * Zark the Damned 19:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with Zark. Among CCGs, the basic Magic game is about average (that wasn't always the case).  Among all other games, I'd say that's true as well.  Most miniatures games and RPGs come to immediately to mind as being very complex in their basic form. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Is "extremely high" even a valid ranking? What a strange revert war.

Since sixth edition, even most expansions aren't that complicated. The problem here, I think, is that Magic is medium difficulty to gamers, but it might well be the most complicated game non-gamers ever encounter. Perhaps we could link to a games wikiproject definitions page from the taxobox that would give examples of different games' complexity and so forth. I think this would be interesting to readers and useful to editors who might be unaware of the taxobox's broad scope. Cool Hand Luke  16:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, maybe Game classification could be used for this (this article apparently inspired the taxobox). I'm a little surprised it's in the main namespace though. Cool Hand Luke  17:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The box template was made for WikiProject Games, and the old discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Games/Infobox. -- Netoholic @ 17:07, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)


 * I Slobad, huh? I think that Magic's rules are extremely complex. The Starter level rulebook is not the official rulebook; the Comprehensive Rulebook is. Is over 100 pages of rules that change every few months medium complexity?
 * You see, that's just it. You seem to be deliberately missing the point.  The complexity rating for the game is based on the core set, which does not change every few months.  Only the expansions add the more complex rules and abilities.  The basic Magic game is fairly simple, although I wouldn't go so far as to call it easy.  No one disputes that when you factor in expansions, the game becomes exponentionally more complex.  However, that is not how the complexity of the game is judged.  Perhaps a fair compromise might be a paragraph discussing the practice of adding a game mechanic with each expansion and the increase in game complexity that occurs with this.  It also might be helpful to point out that the DCI is constantly revising the rules and adding errata to make the game fairer and easier to play.  Junjk 14:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Why only core sets? That's like playing chess with pawns only. The article is about the entire game, with all its expansions. Also probably 70% of Comprehensive Rules relate to each and every game of Magic, no matter which sets it uses. And there are a LOT of these rules. Grue 14:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Grue. By Junjk and others' own admission, calling it medium-complexity is based on playing only the core game, but I have never met anyone who played Magic that way for any substantial length of time, and even using the relatively simple core cards, you can get complicated blocking situations or conflicts of continuous effects that you have to go to the comprules to resolve - and those read like a legal document, and are at least as hard to apply the first couple of times you do it.
 * As for RPGs, it's not a fair comparison because you're not (usually) expected to adhere to the rules as exactingly as you are in M:tG, and in any event, most RPG books have many pages of setting information or lists of spells, monsters and equipment. The actual rules are - not always, but in many cases - not much longer than those for some boardgames like Axis & Allies. In the case of Magic, on the other hand, almost the entirety of that 100+ page book is actual rules (the only arguable exception is a few of the keyword abilities), and I've seen pretty much every one of them come up in actual game situations.
 * I also agree that the complexity should be "High", because I also know hundreds of Magic players and have never met one who kept using the Starter game for any length of time. Many of them would say (as would I) that the complex interactions of effects is a large part of the game's fundamental appeal, and why I prefer it to other CCGs. I'd vote for leaving the complexity at "High", but if we can't agree to do that, could we say "Complexity: Medium or high (see Expansion sets below)" and add a paragraph explaining that? The edit wars are silly. --AlexChurchill 17:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd vote for High, myself. I think players tend to under-estimate how complicated the game really is. --Khaim 22:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Just because the core game is medium, does not mean the game itself is medium.  An expert referee is required at competition matches, the rule book is 100+ pages.  It is certainly not medium complexity.  There can hardly be any games which are more complex.  If there are, please cite them, including details of the length of their rulebook. Psychofox 20:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * To support my position, just read the section after this... In the context of non-CCG, MTG is probably fairly described as "very high" complexity. The Taxobox is general across all games.  Not just CCG games. So why is just be medium?  I can't find any other games in Wikipedia with a taxobox denoting high complexity. Psychofox 20:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would agree with a "High" classification. I am a gamer, and in my experience Magic is only surpassed in complexity by some war games and old-school RPGs. I have seen people play Magic many times, and I don't think I've ever seen a "casual" game where the rules interpretation was perfect on both sides. I find that most players make roughly one rules-related error per turn, on average. Again, this applies to playing the game, not Magic rules. There are a lot or weird corner cases. --Ashenai 21:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Before anyone changes it back to Medium. In the discussion above the following tallies from signed in users hold:


 * High
 * Slobad
 * Grue
 * Psychofox
 * Alex Churchill
 * Khaim
 * Ashenai


 * Medium
 * Netaholic
 * Zark the Damned
 * Junjk

Taking the discussion and the results of this poll into account, I believe a fair compromise between Slobad's original "Extremely High" difficulty and Netaholic's "Medium" is a simple "High", and it is the closest we're going to get to consensus. I have reverted the page to reflect this, and I think this should be considered the "consensus" version for now. Cheers! --Ashenai 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that while the rules of MTG are pretty complicated, to actually PLAY the game, you only need to know a small subset of rules (ie, how turns progress, tapping land for mana, how to attack with creatures and deal damage). Sure, there are weird corner cases that pop up, but even with cards from expansion sets, this doesn't happen very often (at least not in any of my playgroups), and even when they do happen, sometimes we tend not to notice.

I know this seems like I'm reviving a dead argument, but isn't that what discussion pages are for? Anyways, just my 2 cents. Viltris 09:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Game play
I just simplified the "game play" section of the site a lot. Although I think it was important to make the section understandable to non-players, my changes have probably resulted in inconsistencies across the site, and even within the game play section.

The rule, I guess, is that nothing about the game can be mentioned unless it has been explained first. Could you all help me edit the page until it complies with that rule?

(Another thing: I know that not everything in the section is rulebook-level accurate. I spend a lot of time editing, and I believe that what I've put up is the right balance between being accurate and being readable.) Brendan62442 02:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Update: The page has already been reverted to the complicated version. I am not happy. You'll notice that it's on the "tasks to do" list to simplify the gameplay section. Does the general public really care how the stack works? Brendan62442 18:55, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * A short explanation of the stack is important. Magic represents a number of innovations in game play compared to others, and the stack is one area that we shouldn't eliminate. I also largely reverted because much of the flavor was lost.  Your change concentrated on "permanents" and got rid of most discussion of creatures and such. While technically accurate per the formal rules, it is meaningless to most.  I think your change represented too much of a major change to the article, which ultimately left it dry and uninteresting. Removing redundancy in the section is important, and I think I accomplished that with the changes I made. -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
 * You are right about how my version was flavourless. I just feel that with your version, we are throwing twenty or so new keywords at the reader in only a few paragraphs. (Planeswalker, life points, mana, land, creature, artifact, enchantment, instant, sorcery, library, permanent, graveyard, untap, tap, attack, block, damage, power, toughness, stack, and priority.) Untapping is mentioned before tapping. The article even apologizes at one point for how confusing it is. Isn't there a better way? --Brendan62442 03:13, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I'll get some of my non-player friends to read it, but my gut feeling is that getting an impression of the game's flavour is more important than understanding exactly what the keywords mean. Cool Hand Luke  13:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this section needs to be split off into its own page. We could certainly fill up a decent page with a discussion of Magic rules, not to mention interesting tidbits about unusual interactions. Plus as Brendan said, this section throws far too many keywords at the reader. A Magic player will understand it, but a layman would be completely lost.--Khaim 16:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel this needs work? I think this section as a whole is weak, and could use some substantial work, instead of minor revisions. I'm most concerned with the part before Deck construction, which I think is far too complex for a normal reader and does a horrible job of conveying the mechanisms of the game. --Khaim 01:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Multiplayer rules
Aren't they coming out with some official multiplayer rules? (Or have they already?) The fact box, and perhaps the article, needs to be updated to reflect that fact. --L33tminion | (talk) 04:28, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I added mention of these rules in one of my past updates, but Netaholic saw fit to remove them, without giving a reason. -- Zark the Damned 11:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The official rules haven't beeen released yet. -- Netoholic @ 18:57, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)


 * They have now.--Khaim 16:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I used to play MTG around 1994, and the original instruction booklet described basic free-for-all multiplayer. In fact, I might have played more 3 player games than 2 player in my "career". I don't know what happened in later years, and I'm sure there are more detailed rules now, but multiplayer was in the original game.

Duels
I Slobad, huh? Slobad the planeswalker. According to the MtG article, each game of Magic is called a "duel." This is inaccurate. Each game is called a game. No card has ever used the word duel to describe a game of Magic. However, every time I remove the word duel, someone (usually Netoholic) reverts it. (Slobad)


 * Yes, that seems right. I would conjecture that your edits are being reverted wholesale because you continue to change the game complexity, which general opinion disfavours.
 * I'll remove the reference to "duels". I do seem to recall that term, but it's not in the comprehensive rulebook. Cool Hand Luke  06:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the reference to a duel should stay. That is the term for a single game of Magic, and references the flavor aspect (wizards duel, not game).  It also eliminates the confusion between the game of Magic and a game of Magic.  Lastly, it is a reference many players of other CCGs are familiar with... a duel is a generic CCG term, though not in the formal tournament-level Comprehensive Rulebook.  I would not say to use the term often or exclusively, but at least once or twice is appropriate. -- Netoholic @ 07:14, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's not. No card refers to games as duels, and neither does the comprehensive rules, huh?


 * "Duel" is an incredibly common CCG term for individual games. For example, MTGO calls individual games "duels" (as opposed to "matches"). Moreover, it is a precise way to differentiate between games and the game itself. Reading over it again, the article doesn't seem to use the term incorrectly. Cool Hand Luke  10:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed duel from quotes so it won't be mistaken for a game term, huh?


 * Well, it's used once describing the game as a duel between wizards (a very nice way to put it), but I removed the reference from the lead block becuase it looked like a definition even though the term is informal. The other ref I changed to "game", and I wouldn't mind at all if it's changed back. That would leave two references, which I agree is appropriate. Cool Hand Luke  07:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As an MtG player since 1995, I can vouch for the fact that MtG has officially used "duel" as part of its terminology since its initial release. As an example of usage, I refer to the Fifth Edition General Rulings Summary, specifically the section regarding DCI tournaments. (I wish I had further proof available right off, but I cannot find my copies of the Revised and 4th Edition manuals. I could also refer to early issues of the Duelist, which throughout its publication had numerous articles written by people instrumental in the development of MtG.) ... (And, on a more fanciful note, I will also refer to the text on the Unglued card Ashnod's Coupon.) &mdash; Dan Johnson 01:49, 2005 May 11 (UTC)


 * It is simply not the case that "MtG has officially used "duel" as part of its terminology since its initial release". If that were true, you could find it in the Comprehensive Rulebook and would not need to refer to a rulebook that is seven years out of date!


 * What is true is this: EARLY IN THE GAME'S HISTORY, the term was used in the manner some people here are insisting on. However, it has not been used in that way at least since the Sixth Edition rules came out in April 1999. In other words, for roughly half the game's history, it has not been the "official" term in any sense of the word. (And my sense of things was that it was falling out of favour well before that.)

I'd like to mention that the DCI stands for Duelists' Convocation International. That seems like conclusive evidence to me. Viltris 09:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

ballpoint marker glitch
hey, on the German wikipedia i read that all magic the gathering cards have a glitch on their back cover: there is a ballpointer marker somewhere on all cards, as the first issue prototypes had this, and all others had to be printed the same. maybe you can tell me where i can find this marker? i guess it is found at the "ter" in "deckmaster". thanks, --85.72.9.147 16:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This link describes it, and reasons why it is still there. -- Netoholic @ 17:13, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

I always thought it was there to make the Deckmaster name plate look chiped.--70.16.17.42 04:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Reiver Demon
I was wondering about the Reiver Demon card image that was previously on this article. It was removed, since it didn't have any info tag on it, but isn't there anything to be done about that? I think a fair use tag would go well on it. Just like in the first image on that article. After all, it's just a card scan and nothing else. Not like anything would be done to it, other than fair use itself.

I'm not a very into copyright stuff, even in Wikipedia, so I'm not sure about this. It's just something I noticed. Any ideas?--Kaonashi 03:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not a card scan (its an image direct from the WotC website). Also, the "fair use" component is the art only, not the card text.  Lastly, the article talks about how the demonic images lead to controversy in years past (way before Reiver Demon was printed), so early cards (like Demonic Tutor) may fit better.  My personal opinion, though, is that no image is truly necessary there. It's a minor chapter in the story. -- Netoholic @ 16:48, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Casual Formats
There are a dozen or more casual mtg paper and mtgo formats including Peasant magic, Pauper Magic, Prismatic, Highlander/Singleton. No mention so far - can we have a section of major formats played and/or links?


 * There is a section about various formats in the article already. It has been expanded upon in the past, but ultimately most alternate formats are minor and including all of them would clog up the article too much. Most varient formats are only played by a few people, the main exceptions being Highlander, Emperor and Prismatic. Zark the Damned 11:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, That section used to be very bloated. I tightened it up be grouping into more general categories. There just isn't room in this article for anything more detailed.  Information ont hose formats is available elsewhere, and will probably make it into the MTG Archive wiki eventually. -- Netoholic @ 16:44, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Major Overhaul
Well, this page has long been on my watchlist and I finally decided to do something about it. I'm sure to have upset a lot of people but something needed to be done so I just shut up and did it.

Changes:
 * Overview: I edited the overview to make it more concise. I moved some info from the overview at the top to the product info where I think it sits better. The rest I just cut because the overview needs to be brief, not complete.
 * History: I added an anecdote about the game's genesis to flesh it out a bit more.
 * Colour Wheel: There's links to five thorough articles. I left the bare minimum and the links.
 * Gameplay: I cut the whole damn thing and moved it to it's own article leaving a very simple description behind. The fact that the new article is still large suggests to me that this is "a good idea" (YMMV). The tournament info got moved along with the gameplay with the minimum left behind.
 * Controversial Aspects: The goal was to slash each piece down to a decent size while retaining the essence of the idea. Each one was getting way way too wordy.
 * External Links: I moved the strategy and gameplay sites over to the Gameplay article.

I'm sure many folks out there will not be pleased with the changes to structure or to content (or maybe both!). I just did what I felt was necessary to make this page useful, readable and cover most of the basics. IMO the "controversial aspects" should all be removed but let's take it one revolution at a time. The Gameplay article now needs a ton of work, btw. :) ]fvincent 06:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I respect your boldness, but wholly disagree with the removals you made from the article. You might want to review the FAC feedback.   The problem is, your removals made the article completely unbalanced.  After your revision, The product information and controversy sections overpower the others.  Gameplay was reduced to a scant two lines.  I think the most important aspect of this articles is the "game play" section, because the main notoriety for the game is the fact that it was an entirely new kind of game.  Sub-articles can be great, but try and make the article stand on it's own -- just as if the sub-articles weren't there.  As a reader, I hate when I am forced to jump to another page to get key information.  Also, the "Organized play" should not be part of a gameplay article.  Gameplay is the mechanics. I already reduced "Game playe" once to what I see is a bare minimum for this article, so I can't see us losing that.
 * I would even venture to say that we should go for another Featured Article attempt with the non-split version. Even if it fails, we'll get good feedback again.  -- Netoholic @ 07:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I took your comments to heart Netoholic and tried to implement only the smaller changes first. I read the FAC comments and agreed with most if not all of them. I'm not sure I understand why you reverted my smaller changes. I hadn't removed anything, only moved them around. The only thing that did get cut was the intro which many people in the FAC said was too long (with one objection). I'm not going to get into a revert war. If you feel that strongly about it, I don't. I was only trying to apply the smaller changes and leave the gameplay section as is. If you feel this article is fine as it is, that's ok but I think it's, frankly, a total mess. fvincent 18:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that the FAC comments may be out of date in some areas becuase of improvments since then. The expanded history is nice,  though perhaps a little too much about the Pro Tour and Magic Online.  -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough about the FAC comments. I'll leave the intro, though I think it could be cut in half without losing much. The Pro Tour and MTGO are the two most significant contributions to the gaming world from MTG. I'm not sure how you could have a History without mentioning them. I'll keep making small changes, one at a time. Feel free to revert them; I'm old enough not to take it personally. fvincent 18:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Someone wrote a rather spare article (Vintage (Magic: The Gathering) that should probably be merged into this one. Al 14:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Controversial Aspects
While I'm stirring the hornets nest, I strongly suggest a brief overview of the controversies and moving them to their own article. The page as a whole is overly long and something needs to go. I'm not stupid enough to move it though without some people agreeing with me. Anyone? fvincent 18:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's well balanced right now. Splitting it off gives it too much weight (there just isn't that much controversy).  -- Netoholic @ 19:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

While the article is admittedly long, I feel more attention should be given to the patent controversy as it is an interesting story and impacts other collectible card games.--malber 16:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The patent information was moved to Collectible card game. The issue is important, but moreso to other CCGs than Magic itself, which is why that section was moved out of this article and into the other. -- Netoholic @ 17:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

As for the part about luck vs. skill. There should be more about building a deck. For instance to have a nice distribution of land so that you don't end up with too much or too little, you make 1/3 of a 60 card deck land, and then when making the deck, put a land every 3rd card so that even when you shuffle a little, you should get a decent distribution. Of course adjustments have to be made for mana producing cards in your deck and the kinda of deck you are using. So it isn't as much luck as it seems. 70.111.224.85 01:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This practice (mana-weaving) is illegal. Decks must be fully randomized before play. Andrew Levine 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Mana-weaving is NOT illegal so long as you fully and legitimately randomize your deck after mana-weaving. I believe at least 3 proper riffle-shuffles is the standard for randomization. Applejuicefool 21:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction with Richard Garfield page
This page says Richard designed M:tG after Peter Adkison wouldn't (initially) publish RoboRally. But the Richard Garfield page says he designed M:tG much earlier, and that Adkison agreed to publish both games at that meeting. Personally I've heard both versions elsewhere; does anyone know which one is correct?


 * It appears that there was a rough version of Magic in existence during the Roborally meeting. I'll update the page. fvincent 16:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What about RoboRally? Did Adkison agree to publish it at that meeting or not? I'd make an educated guess that he initially demurred for budget reasons (WotC was run out of his garage at the time if memory serves, certainly they were not the rather large company they are today) but it would be nice if someone knew for sure.

Net decking
Net decking is the result of the fact that there are certain cards and strategies, that for any given block will dominate all other strategies. The main reason for this is that inevitably certain card combinations arise that become very powerful due to their synergistic qualities. One example of this was the card 'Wild Mongrel' in the Odyssey block. When a player had this creature out they could discard cards that had 'Madness' triggered effects at the same time they were activating their 'Wild Mongrel's' ability (increasing its strength and toughness). This combination made 'Wild Mongrel' decks devestating.

While 'Wild Mongrel' decks were an exception, rare cards are almost always an essential element of the most powerful decks. The reason for this is that rare cards have the biggest/most bizarre effects in the game, making them prime candidates for the powerful combinations described above. This is opposed to common or uncommon cards which tend to follow set formulas of mediocrity (common cards moreso than uncommon cards). When a new expansion is released, players will spend some time experimenting with strategies and card combinations. Once the best strategies and combinations are discovered through tournament play, they are inevitably published on the Internet. After the word gets out, the cards that are needed to build these decks become much more valuable (especially the rares). The popularity of the 'good rares' and 'good uncommons' needed to build these decks causes net decks to cost upwards of a couple hundred dollars to build.

I removed this addition. I think the section doesn't need such a big explanation. Perhaps it can find its way into a new article or the MTG wiki. -- Netoholic @ 20:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Old discussion
What happened to older discussions beyond a certain point? I'm pretty sure that the discussion for this page has lasted much longer than what can be see here. Are any of the old discussions archived? How can I find older discussions that are not on the immediate Talk page?
 * I've created an archive at Talk:Magic: The Gathering/Archive1. -- Netoholic @ 12:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Internet play
I removed the "Playing Magic on the Internet part. I think the section is not needed. Hope everyone agrees. -- Netoholic @ 14:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Magic: The Gathering Online has its own article.
 * Magic-League is already in the external links section
 * The others were just small-time software tools. This section may have been used more for advertising.
 * The section, while wordy, really didn't add much beyond the obvious. The article is quite long already, cutting this is makes it better.

See also & external links
Is there a criteria sort of for what belongs under the See also and External links sections of the article? Magic: The Gathering videogames is under the See also section, with a sublink of Magic: The Gathering Battlegrounds. Why is it that only Battlegrounds is listed, when there are so many other games, and why even list that particular game at all? There are also a bunch of other Magic related articles that could be added in the See also section, but they are not there. What is the criteria for articles that belong? How about the links that fall under the External links section? MTGNews.com is missing (the last time I checked), and it still is pretty popular.

The point is that a lot of the articles and links that appear seem to be more subjective than objective.


 * According to the [|Wikipedia manual of style], links should not be repeated in the "see also" section if mentioned in the article — though I can't say I necessarily agree with that…


 * Anyway, I'd say the section should belong to links to other articles in the Wikipedia that are very closely related, namely the company, the product, and anything that's very very significant to the article and to MTG in general. "External links" should probably be web links, and that's probably okay to put things in like MTGNews (I do understand it has a wiki page, so maybe a wiki link next to the web link would be good?).


 * Why be so strict? MTG is a big page. Keeping it simple is a hard task, but in the end it benefits everyone. —Mproud, Sun Aug 14 02:34:46 CDT 2005

Colors of Magic
Moved a small section on color from deck construction to the colors of magic section. Also added a refrence to colorless and multi color cards. Hope this is agreeable. If anyone wants to expound on multi color cards it may help. --Wirewood Shadow 14:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the "Colors of Magic" section, when mentioning the creature types, should link the M:tG-specific creature-type descriptions. There are a number of references on each creature type to be able to compile articles based on these types (shared abilities, similarities, strategies, etc.), and it would fit into the Wikiproject. I could possibly start on such articles, but I'm not as available as I'd like to be. Is there anyone who can help with this? Rjfleming84 19:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure that would be a good idea. A page to discuss the general mythology of Magic might be okay, but I think specific pages for creature types is a bit much. --Khaim 23:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Alternative Deck Construction
This sentence appeared in the article until yesterday:


 * Alternate deck construction &mdash; Like chess, many variant forms of playing the game abound.

I changed it to this:


 * Alternate deck construction &mdash; Like chess with different pieces, variant forms of the game using different rules for building decks abound.

It was reverted by Netholic (who has done a lot of great work to bring the page up to high quality), but I have just restored my version. I have three reasons: first, the sentence as it stood read like an introduction to the "Variant Rules" section (which it was, in revisions long since discarded) but it was in fact the second paragraph in that section (after "Multiplayer Rules") so it was out of place. Second, variations revolving around alternate deck construction have nothing at all to do with playing the game differently, as building a deck is a completely separate aspect of the game from its actual play. The distinction is an important one to make, since the sentence immediately follows a paragraph on variant rules which do affect game play itself (i.e. the multiplayer rules), but for which normal deck construction rules hold. Third (and least important), "many X abound" is semantically redundant. Andrew Levine 08:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I reverted because "chess with different pieces" isn't a concept I understand (does it even exist?). Perhaps the best solution would be to remove the sentence entirely, or move it to the variant rules intro? -- Netoholic @ 19:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Removing it works, I guess. The concept is pretty self-explanatory since normal deck construction rules are explained already in the article. (As for chess with different pieces, yes, there are a few famous ones; see Chess with unusual pieces and Fairy chess piece.) Andrew Levine 22:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Learn something new every day... In any case, I moved a coouple sentences up to form an intro for the variant rules section, without the analogy. -- Netoholic @ 18:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Would think "chess with different pieces" would be analogous to variant Magic only if homemade/non-standard cards are used. Variant rules using Magic cards would be like "chess with different rules", not pieces. Applejuicefool 15:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

MTG article
You re-inserted this phrase - "its premise and storyline are given little to no notice by many players."

I respect most of your other work on the article, but I think that phrase is jaded, wrong, and irrelevant. All players give at least notice to the the premise and storyline because the mechanics are based so much on flavor (Ninjitsu, equipment, etc.). The only group that perhaps comes close to ignoring the "premise and stroyline" are Pro Tour players, but that is a vast minority or players. Above all, what is the point of the phrase? It might be appropriate as a counter-point if the article were asserting the opposite viewpoint, but the player/storyline isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. The second paragraph starts with "In the game's primary fictional setting". Boom. Right there the context of the planswalker idea is set in place, without saying anything about how players interact with it.

I think the article doesn't need any comment about what players think of the "premise and storyline". If I thought it did, I'd instead be pointing out how many fiction books are sold and describe the mechanic/flavor relationship to show that most players do follow the storyline. I just think your phrase is a personal viewpoint that doesn't have a place in the article. Perhaps you could more neutrally state something like "the game can be played without paying any attention to the storyline". Even so, you should add such a comment to the Storyline section or on Magic: The Gathering storylines. -- Netoholic @ 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It serves the same purpose as the "horned helmets" section on Viking, that is to say, it's there to counter preconceptions that many readers have. The assumption that Magic is primarily played as a role-playing game is untrue, and more people who would want to play the game balk at it for that reason more than for others (like the expense). I know because I worked in a gaming store, and ran tournaments there, for three years (where I continue to play, while now owning an online store of my own). Through the store I personally know a few dozen regular Magic players, of a wide variety of ages, interests, and backgrounds. Most of them are not "Pro Tour players," as you say, by any means, but I think no more than two or three of them would consider Magic "roleplaying" at all, or for that matter even give more than a passing thought to the art and flavor-text (the most visible fantasy elements in the game). It's flatly untrue that those who play the game so they can win tournaments are the only ones who entirely disregard the "wizards casting spells" premise. So no, I'm not inserting my own personal preference (personally, I enjoy the backstory to a small extent, though I don't play RPGs), I'm citing evidence, anecdotal but still observed by the eye of a salesman and enthusiast at a heavily trafficked gaming establishment over several years.


 * While some game-relevant mechanics, like Ninjitsu or Equipment, are designed primarily from a perspective of flavor, this doesn't mean that's the way the players tend to view them. Very few of the 50-odd players I know would ever regard, say, Umezawa's Jitte in its capacity as the weapon of choice of a legendary rogue samurai; they considered the effect that it has on the game, and even the tiny minority who consider the card cool because it shows up in the novelized versions of the story play it first and foremost because it's a powerful card.


 * I think my point can best be made by observing the reaction to an article posted on Magic's official website yesterday, as the first installment of what is to be a weekly column. The author started by rendering a few turns in a game of Magic into two written descriptions: a dry analysis using only mathematical terms, and a Dungeon-Master-style fantasy narration. His stated purpose was to show how much more interesting the latter is. However, in the several pages of responses which the article drew in the official forum, the majority of posters who stated a preference for one account over the other actually preferred the strategic analysis, despite the author's efforts to make it unequivocally seem the less appealing choice. Another sizable faction said that what they visualize when they play Magic is something in-between, and neither a purely mathematical approach nor a role-playing game is their cup of tea. Those who actually enjoyed the "Dungeon Master" description were in the minority. The second paragraph of the Wikipedia article, as it stood, created a false impression about how Magic is most often played, and the observation that so many MagictheGathering.Com readers (who are often as far as can be from the "Pro players" to whom you referred) would prefer to entirely disregard role-playing as an element of the game stands to support all I've said.


 * Out of respect for how well your work has improved this article overall, I will refrain from changing that paragraph back for the moment, and await your response. Andrew Levine 04:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am going to ask that you look at the overall balance of both the intro and the article on the whole. This fairly subtle mention of the fictional setting does not speak about an role-playing aspects.  In fact, it states the opposite ("bears little resemblance").  I don't want to see the concept expanded, nor diminished.  I really think it is spot-on. -- Netoholic @ 05:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Netoholic, I see where you're coming from. However, I agree with Andrew that most players (including myself) see it as somewhat of a hybrid. That is, Magic is primarily a game, but does have flavorful aspects that make it more interesting. So while more players might prefer the "dry numbers" version of the game, as Andrew mentions, that's really choosing between two extremes. No one wants either.


 * Further, I think the second paragraph of the intro really is biased towards the role-playing/flavor aspect. That is not to say it should be removed. It needs to show the dynamic aspect we're talking about, that Magic is both a game and a setting. Actually, I'm more concerned about the opening lines of the gameplay section, which are completely biases towards flavor. Ask 100 Magic players what a planeswalker is, and maybe half of them will know, if that.


 * How about a compromise. We modify the second intro paragraph a little to better reflect what seems to be the majority opinion (meaning the Wizards board thread etc, not me and Andrew). We remove most or all mention of flavor from the gameplay section; it doesn't belong there anyway. And we change the tiny Storyline section into a new section dealing entirely with Magic's flavor, which can further expand upon the very issue we're discussing here. Would that be better? --Khaim 13:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm going to cut the gameplay section down to size, unless someone does it for me. Hint, hint. --Khaim 14:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, respondents to the recent Flavor article on the WotC board is not a "majority opinion". Readers of that website are primarily Spikes, and the comments on the board were more criticizing for the extremist approach of that article, not a general commentary on flavor in the game.  Please don't extend so much validity to what you percieve from those boards.
 * Secondly, there is absolutely no bias in the second paragraph. Noone disputes that "in the primary fictional setting" which the game is based on, it is a fantasy battle between planeswalkers. That is factually established, and that paragraph does not promote that view. Andrew Levine's phrasing onthe other hand, pointedly shoots down that view by using unsourced comments.
 * Third, the existing gameplay section is about the right size and detail. For this article to stand-alone, it is needed.  Sub-articles are used to provide more detail on a subject, not so that key information and context can be moved out of the article.  Every article should make sense when read all by itself.  If they don't, we are failing. -- Netoholic @ 17:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. While the sentences themselves are true in every way, it is the manner in which they are presented that is problematic. Namely, they draw attention to the flavor-side aspects of the game. That's not a bad thing per se, but as currently written it appears to be much more important than it is.

The gameplay section needs an overhaul. (Note: When I say "gameplay section", I mean the stuff between "Game play" and "Deck Construction".) For one thing, it's badly written, and I mean that purely objectively. It's hard to understand, even for me, and I already know what it's talking about! For someone who doesn't know the terms already, I suspect it's pure gibberish. Specifically: I think everything that's discussed in this section merits being there. The issue is the level of detail and manner of presenting. Currently the material is badly presented and given what I consider too much detail. The article should mention the stack, and how it resolves timing issues; they do not need to know the details of how it works. That should be reserved for the Magic: The Gathering rules article. --Khaim 18:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The six types of cards aren't really relevant to understanding the basic of the game. They are laid out in detail on the rules page; they don't need more than a passing mention here.
 * The paragraph beginning with "during each turn" is a mess of long, tangled sentences. There is some important information there, but it's lost in the jumble of keywords, parentheses, and conditionals.
 * The stack is very complex. A large chunk of the rules page is devoted to explaining it.

Excuse me? What is this? From what I can tell, you We're going to dispute resolution. I tried to be civil, but you're just being an ass now. --Khaim 22:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Reverted back to your last edit, over several contributions by at least two people
 * 2) Added some quotes and I believe one typo fix to mask the change


 * Several of those contributions make the article less helpful to the reader. You are editing too much, too fast, and the article quality is suffering by being inconsistent when read as a whole.  This is a common mistake by new editors who edit section-by-section.  -- Netoholic @ 15:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Specifics, please? And I, for one, think the article needs to have better quality in the first place before you start worrying about consistency. Also, explain why you keep reverting the iconic cards image, as that has nothing to do with the text of the article. Not to mention that half the edits aren't mine; try looking at the history page. --Khaim 17:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You are not improving the iconic cards image, simply replacing it with your creation which includes cards that seriously lack the "iconic" qualities. Also, your image (and the older one) are missing the card borders, which is a key feature.  I'll be happy to create a better image for this article, but yours is clearly not "iconic". -- Netoholic @ 17:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I refer you to here. It has nothing to do with "my" creation or not, but rather cards that showcase the aspects of the game. In this case, how "cool" the cards look far outweighs how "good" they are; a new reader can't judge card quality, but he can look at the picture. The most important quality of my picture, in my eyes, is that it uses the new frames and includes a card of each color. If you want to create your own mix of cards, be my guest, but don't insist on keeping everything the way it was indefinately. Specifically, the blue and green cards are rather arbitrary and could easily be replaced. Fireball I think is perfect for red's spot. Kokusho is arguable but is both showy and powerful. Final Judgement would have been Wrath, but there's already a wrath in the article and I think it's bad stylistically to repeat cards. Pentavus is just a personal favorite. --Khaim 18:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Limited formats
I think the basic premise of limited formats (building decks out of sealed product) ought to be explained. A word ought also to be given to explaining the procedure booster draft, which I understand is fairly badly-understood by Muggles. --Agamemnon2 08:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'll do it when I have time if no one else does. --Khaim 16:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The DCI rules related to this are in their own article. Also booster drafts and sealed deck tournaments are not limited to only Magic, and so should not be included in this article. -- Netoholic @ 17:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So noted. Should there be a generic article about either of them, then? --Agamemnon2 07:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So we shouldn't discuss gambling either, because it's also used in poker? Oh, and I better cut the artwork section. I mean, there's an entire industry devoted to that, we should step on their toes with our little "Magic" game.
 * The DCI page is rather sparse on this topic. I suggest making a "limited formats" page that discusses the various methods of drafting (which, as you point out, are not restricted to Magic), add a link here, and expand a little here. I mean, the article mentions the word "draft" once, in mentioning that a draft deck has 45 cards. I don't think that's sufficient explanation of the topic. --Khaim 12:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Super Secret Tech
This card is listed on the Unhinged page, but it doesn't appear in the card lists to my knowledge. Do we have a source on it or is it a hoax? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Based on personal knowledge alone, the card exists. The fact that it does not appear on any spoilers is part of the joke. SCG has a picture of it, as does magiccards.info. I suggest using those for sources, although I admit that having no official recognition of the card is somewhat problematic. --Khaim 13:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have two in my trade binder. It's real. Andrew Levine 21:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think a link should be added to the article. In fact I'll just go and do that. It also answered my unasked second question, "what on earth does it do?" -- thanks. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Gameplay graphic
I'd like to hear what other people have to say about this. The current graphic for this section is this. Above, someone remarked that the cards all look rather similar to each other if you don't already know the game. In addition, I think that while these cards are powerful and well-known to serious Magic players, that isn't what we should be showing in this article. I think that instead we should show "flashy" cards that convey the flavor and mechanics of the game. Also, using the new card frames is probably a good idea. So here's my proposal for a new graphic. I admit that Ayumi may not be the best choice, and Beacon of Tomorrows is also questionable. Pentavus is a personal favorite, but in that case I don't see an argument for anything but a personal favorite would apply. Thoughts? --Khaim 21:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this. I think the picture for the cards should reflect the way the cards are designed now, not how they looked over 10 years ago.  If people disagree with the selection of the new cards then maybe some of the cards that wizards.com previewed for 9th Edition could be used instead.  --TheKoG 20:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I also like the graphic showing newer cards, but mostly because it reflects all the colors. If it were up to me, I'd represent them with Worship, Hinder, Force of Nature, Fireball, Promise of Power, and (sure, why not) Pentavus. That way, all the card types (except land) are present, and both white-bordered and black-bordered cards are shown. Andrew Levine 15:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * How about this?
 * | Image archived
 * The image is sharper and the file size is smaller. The choice of cards contains art that each focus the viewers' eyes on a single figure (which is a problem with both Beacon and Ayumi). There's a good balance of card types and cards which reflect the unique characteristics of each color (though I think Llanowar Elves might be more in-flavor for green). For each colored card, the art is strongly painted in that color, which serves to illustrate the different colors (Worship is the one excpetion here, but in the previous image Ayumi, Kokusho, and Beacon all have a dominant color in their art that is different from the card itsef.). Andrew Levine 16:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I like this last iteration of the graphic, with the exception of Hisoka's Defiance (which is not a well-known card at all). The theme of a prominent single entity works better than the previous, varied ones. It would be a good idea to use the re-set post-Fifth-Dawn artifact frame instead of the faulty, too-white Mirrodin one. Perhaps a 9th ed Ornithopter? --Agamemnon2 07:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that Hisoka's Defiance seems out of place. Worship and Lord of the Undead are great. I considered Force of Nature myself, but I just think that picture is bad, especially compared with the original. If we could find something more along the lines of "Hulk smash" that would be great. And while Agamemnon is right that the Pentavus uses the "wrong" frame, I'm not sure that it really matters; more importantly, what cool artifact would you put in its place? --Khaim 18:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * For the artifact I think that Umezawa's Jitte, Loxodon Warhammer, or Jester's Cap could maybe work. If Force of Nature doesn't work well with green then maybe a Tooth and Nail or Myojin of Life's Web?  --TheKoG 18:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's my try:
 * thumb|none|314px|Magic: the Gathering cards are designated by various types and colors.

I overwrote Andrew's, just because I don't think we should keep cluttering up the namespace with what, to anyone else, are pretty much the same picture. And of course we can go back to his version, although I hope we can all agree that Hisoka's Defiance should not be the blue card. --Khaim 01:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the last one, using Clone, Icy and the Spider showcase the mechanics for blue, artifact and green pretty good. Using a noncreature artifact is good too, since they're usually the more common type, and help to define them as a concept more than Pentavus or Masticore would. --193.166.11.251 12:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Khaim's new image is good. Honestly, the only reason I put the Defiance in there was because I wanted an Instant and a common to be represented. Andrew Levine 06:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we should have cards that care the core of the color, red, white, black, and artifacts are fine. but the blue and green should use something different.  how about counterspell for blue.  it shows one of blue's main themes, which is permission.  and how about Deranged Hermit for green.  the hermit shows greens love for tokens, swarms, and pumps. --User:ShadowZ 08:58, 21 November 2005
 * Both cards are older cards, which is the main strike against them. While it's fine to show older cards, we should try to reflect the current state of the game as much as possible, and that means that we should err on the side of recent cards. Further, blue has deemphasized permission lately- look at the counterspeltls in the last few sets. For that matter, Counterspell hasn't been in the last two core sets. As for green, I think a big creature is the best possible representation. The Spider may not be the best card, but so far we haven't had a better suggestion.
 * Finally, remember that for these particular cards a key point is to have the color of the illustration match the card's color. This is really why Silklash Spider is in there; it's not the biggest or the coolest green card, but it is very green. This page isn't really for people who play the game; it's for people who don't play the game. To them, it'll be more interesting if the card looks green than if the numbers happen to be bigger. --Khaim 03:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The blue card should be 'Hinder', making it Worship, Hinder, Lord of the Undead, Fireball, Silklash Spider, Icy Manipulator (most recent printings of all). That gives an enchantment, instant, sorcery, 2 creatures, and an artifact, and the types and mechanics fit the colors, even. I image-doctored a Hinder into the pic locally on my machine and it looks great, I promise. -NorrYtt 22:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Flavor debate
Slobad removed the phrase "In the game's primary fictional setting" from the second introductory paragraph. Netoholic put it back. Personally, I think the sentence is better off without it. For one thing, "primary" implies there are other fictional settings, which there aren't. Also, the phrase is rather awkward, and I can't say what it really adds to the statement. If the question is how to distinguish the flavor from the raw card game, then I agree that something should be added to convey this, but I think this phrase is confusing. Slobad was correct in removing it.

I think the real issue is how to best explain the fact that the game has a flavorful aspect but is not entirely defined by it. We've danced around the issue but not really resolved anything. Thoughts? --Khaim 00:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we can all agree that there are several fictional settings shown on Magic cards (Mirrodin, Rath, etc.).  The primary setting is the one where two wizards are fighting a duel, as described in the words that follow in that paragraph.  -- Netoholic @ 13:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I see those more as different worlds within a single setting, that of Magic's multiverse. I challenge you to find an example of the game of Magic depicted as anything other than a duel between two wizards. The cards may be from many and varied worlds, but the basic structure of the game is always the same, and I think always has been. If you're of the opinion that Mirrodin, Rath, etc. are different settings, then please explain exactly what the primary setting is, and which block it's from.
 * (Sorry, that was me earlier.) --Khaim 22:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverted 12,000 cards
24.179.43.142, you said there were over 12,000 cards in Magic the Gathering. I couldn't find any evidence of this, and a Gatherer search gives only 7692 cards. Where did you get your info? Ashenai 08:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Gatherer doesn't include reprints User:ShadowZ 06:45, 5 december 2005
 * Base sets = 350 cards
 * Small sets = 143 cards
 * 24 base sets x 350 = 8400
 * 30 small sets x 143 = 4290
 * Promo cards, Beatdown versions, etc.
 * +/- slight differences in set sizes
 * Over 12,000 cards.
 * His logic is correct.--SeizureDog 04:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Over 12,000 cards.
 * His logic is correct.--SeizureDog 04:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * His logic is correct.--SeizureDog 04:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Newest changes, revert, etc.
Hello 136.1.1.101! I liked most of your revisions. There were a couple I changed, and one or two we seem to be in disgreement about. Please read and comment on anything you disagree with, so we can come to a proper consensus. Thank you! :)

I changed the following:
 * Re-added or "duelists" I'm not sure why you remived this; while you and your friends may not call the fictional wizards (or the very real players) "duelists", I can assure you that they are indeed called that. There's a reason the DCI is called the Duelists Convocation International.
 * Reverted "minimum number of cards" to "minimum of twenty cards", under Prismatic. I'm puzzled by this, as well. Prismatic requires a minimum of twenty cards of each color; this rule is just as real as the 60-card minimum deck size is. Why lose precision for no reason?
 * Changed "life points" to "life". The official term is indeed "life" (check the rulebook). They are indeed sometimes called "life points", but that should be included as an alternate term, at most. The cards never mention the phrase "life points". Nor do the rules.
 * Changed "the basic land" to basic lands. Your phrasing can, IMHO, be confusing, making it seem that there is only one type of basic land. A deck can include 12 Islands and 12 Plains, for instance, something that the current phrasing makes clearer, I think.
 * Reverted "imposing additional rules by which all players must abide" to "protecting its own permanents". Can you give me examples why you feel White "imposes additional rules by which all players must abide" any more than any other color? Mark Rosewater talked about White's special power to protect its own permanents, [here], for instance. I don't think imposing additional rules for all players to follow has ever been very White. The only example I can think of offhand is Moat, which is indeed White. But then, Mana Flare was originally Red, and is now green (Heartbeat of Spring). Aether Storm is Blue. Endbringer's Revel is Black. Finally, Meekstone is an Artifact.

Thanks for your input!

--Ashenai 19:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to support 136.x here...
 * The fighting wizards are never called "duelists", that term is not used, though "duel" is. The original Duelists Convocation International refered to the players as duelists, not the fictional wizards. Even today, the real life Magic players are never called duelists.
 * I think I wrote in "minimum number of cards" a long time ago because I wanted the section to be generic among all variations. No value in specifics since the link to the written rules is there.
 * "life points" is a much better phrase for the non-players reading this (though I moved the quote mark). In particular, parents may not react well if we confuse the game with "real life".
 * White "protecting its own permanents" is a bad phrase. How does white protect it's enchantments? Lands?  That aspect is a minor one, whereas white "imposing rules" is clearly a strong factor in the modern game.  Read Rosewater's The Great White Way.  Recent examples are 'Rule of Law', 'Hokori, Dust Drinker', 'Marble Titan', 'Ghostly Prison', things like that.  A lot of these abilities have been moving from other colors, especially blue.
 * -- Netoholic @ 19:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, cool. That makes sense, and I can get on board with the other modifications as well. But there's just no reason whatsoever to not mention the fact that Prismatic is restricted to twenty card of each color. Why do we mention that the players start with 20 life each? That's also in the linked rules, after all. So is the 60-card minimum. So is the 7-card starting hand. And I personally know of variants that modify all of those rules. It would still make for a pretty poor article if it read "a player starts the game with a certain number of 'life' points", or "some cards in their hand". --Ashenai 20:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Previously, that section on variant rules was bursting with too-much detail about each specific format. I re-wrote it using general terms which apply to multiple variants.  There are certain "Prismatic"-like variations that use different numbers.  The point of that section is to broadly describe the variant, not detail it too much (which is why we have links to the full rules of those). Also, those rules are subject to change (5-Color used to be 18 cards of each color).  Sometimes, just be a thing is factual does not mean it belongs. -- Netoholic @ 23:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I really do think that losing precision in favour of inclusiveness is a bad idea in this case. Prismatic is one of the few sanctioned formats, and as such, it deserves more information than variants (of which there are a huge number). I generally agree that just because something is facutal, it does not necessarily need to be stated, but in this case, I believe it does. The 20-card limit for Prismatic is just as much a part of the rules for the format as the 250-card library minimum is. The fact that there are variants, or that it used to be different, is IMO neither here nor there.--Ashenai 11:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts: "Duelists" shouldn't be here. It's not official terminology, and I don't think it's widely used. I think "twenty" should be used, since I don't buy Netoholic's rational about being generic when talking about formats. It's information, and it's pretty consistent, so why not include it? For that matter, MTGO's Prismatic format has a 20 cards of each color restriction, and that's as close to official as we have.

I'm really torn on the last two points. While "life" is quite clearly the correct term, I can see how it might be confusing. A compromise might be to use the correct term, but explicitly explain what it is so readers aren't confused by the term.


 * I'm quite happy with the current "life" points version. It's both correct and easily understood. --Ashenai 11:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

As for white, I think both phrases are correct, so it's really a stylistic concern. You could include both if you wanted, and it would be just as valid. However, I have to say that the "protection" phrase reads much better than the original "rules" phrase; the former is clear and simple while the latter is rather convoluted, structure-wise. The current wording is decent, though. --Khaim 01:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I prefer my version ("protecting its permanents"), but sure, the current wording is also okay. --Ashenai 11:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Text removed from Controversial Aspects
Removed the following text, by an anonymous user (this was his first and only edit to Wikipedia):


 * ====Corporate control====
 * Unlike traditional board games like Chess or Go, Magic is owned and controlled by a for-profit corporation.

85.226.149.87, do you have any proof that this fact caused any sort of mainstream controversy? If yes, please show us. Thank you! :) --Ashenai 15:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Rarity distribution in starter vs. booster packs
I've been searching for this information for awhile now, and I can't find it anywhere: what's the basic land/common/uncommon/rare breakdown for starter packs and booster packs for "modern" Magic sets? This article says a standard booster pack contains eleven common cards, three uncommon cards, and one rare. I'm assuming one of those common slots is taken up by a basic land in those sets that have them, but I have no clue what the breakdown is for starters.

An answer would be greatly appreciated, and I think this would also be very useful information to add to the article. Thanks, android  79  19:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't you know it, I found what I was looking for right after I asked here:, , . The breakdown is 1/10/3/1 for boosters and 30/32/10/3 for starters, with the basic land being replaced by a common in those sets that don't have them. If no one objects, I'll add a paragraph to Product information about starters and boosters. android  79  19:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. --Ashenai 23:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To be precise, basic land is included only in core set boosters. Large sets like Champions of Kamigawa or Ravnica: City of Guilds, have their own basic lands but those do not come in the boosters.
 * actually they are in large set boosters, but only as foils --User:ShadowZ 6:52, 5 December 2005
 * Are you sure? I've never seen a booster have a foil basic land. I thought the foil lands just came in the theme decks.--SeizureDog 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The video game
Is the game "Magic the gathering: Battlegrounds, do you use cards or is it real time combat, can someone explain it to me?

Pece Kocovski 03:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This question is really better suited to a video gaming site. The short answer is no, you do not use cards. The video game is essentially a real-time combat where your wizard cast spells; while the spells are based on cards from the game, they're not represented by cards in the video game. --Khaim 14:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Magic or Magic?
So... Should we italicize the name of the game or not? I don't really have a strong preference one way or the other, but it needs to be standardized throughout the article. As it's written, it's roughly half-and-half. Suggestions? Andrew Levine 00:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see, which of those options is supported by every manual of writing style I've ever read...? Every reference to Magic or the title of a set (Ninth Edition, Ravnica) must be italicized.  I already went through and did it once, but that was carelessly reverted by someone, so I'll leave it to you. -- Netoholic @ 18:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You italicized all references in the same edits where you reverted several people's work with no justification. If you would like to go back and only make this change, I'm sure no one will revert that. --Khaim 19:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Types of Sets
The article contains erroneous information regarding base sets and expansion sets. The term "Core Set" was not introduced until 8th Edition, and was created to replace the term "base set", not refer to the latest revision of it. The Base Set does not have a "purpose," it IS the game. Expansion sets for Magic are no different from expansion packs for computer games. The Sims is The Sims with or without its seven expansion packs, and Magic is the base set, with or without the expansion sets. Additionally, the proper term for a "block" of three sets is a CYCLE: the Rath Cycle, the Masquerade Cycle, etc., and many expansions are not part of a Cycle at all. Expansion sets can contain ANY NUMBER of cards, and MOST of them contained 350 per large set and 143 per small set, not whatever numbers are currently listed. (preceding comment added by 68.125.130.110 --Ashenai (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC))
 * There is a big difference between a computer game's expansions, and Magic expansions. Namely, that when playing against other people, you can encounter expansion cards even if you build your deck only from the base set. This does not happen with computer games, and it's the reason why "the Core Set is the game", is highly debatable, in my opinion. --Ashenai (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Jumping the Shark
The article should mention both the 6th Edition rules downgrade and the 8th Edition cardface downgrade as moments when many players believe Magic to have Jumped the Shark. (preceding comment added by 68.125.130.110 --Ashenai (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC))
 * "Downgrade" is a highly POV word. Please provide proof of massive public opinion against either, and we can certainly include it. Note that every single change in Magic history has been the source of some backlash; to make a case for the "many players believed it to have jumped the shark" thing, we'd need to see that an unusually large number of people protested. Ravager Affinity, for example, verifiably and significantly reduced the number of people playing Magic while it was the dominant deck, and the number rose back again after the deck was destroyed by bannings. Thus, to say that Ravager Affinity was hated by a lot of players is a fair assertion. Could you please demonstrate something similar for either the 6th edition rules changes, or the 8th edition cardface change?
 * Please note that as far as I know, more people are playing Magic today than ever before. --Ashenai (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ashenai. Dispite the bad feelings at the time, it seems that nearly all Magic players have accepted and even appreciate the changes. And the Ravnica prerelease is reported to have been the highest attentence ever in most locations. Given that, what's your evidence for having jumped the shark? --Khaim 13:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I dunno, but I can tell you exactly when this article jumped the shark. -- Netoholic @ 18:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

MTGNews.com
Since there are many Unofficial Sites based on Magic, should the section be retitled; "Popular Unofficial Sites", or is that not necessary? Also, mtgnews.com still is a popular site for news and also discussion on the game in general; it's a great source of information. So why is it excluded from the list of outside websites?
 * As someone who has spent quite a bit of time on MTGnews, I don't see why it isn't on the list. Even if it's lost a lot of energy since January, it's more active than the CPA. -Senori 21:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the idea was to avoid putting commercial sites on the list. That said, this section could use revision; some of the sites haven't been updated in several years. --Khaim 02:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this would have been ok before DK sold the site. The site went to poo after that, but still remains one of the hottest "unofficial" sites. Fr0 04:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (comment above undeleted) Is the "DemonKyoto" who deleted the above comment the same DK? Anyway, if you disagree with the comment, post a flaming reply, don't just delete it. SnowFire 14:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I have nothing to do with that site. I checked my watchlist and thought the comment was vandilism on the main articles page, I didnt notice until just now when Jefffire pointed it out to me that I had edited the talk page by mistake. So sorry everyone ;_; DemonWeb 15:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The qutoe under the reverse of the card
The reverse of the card has changed once this was after when the booster Beta was released the Alpha Cards where different in size and had a different back

As a player i am awear of this as you can not play with alpha cards in your deck unless they are all altha due to this reason


 * That's not exactly true. The back has not changed, however the cut of the corners has. Alpha cards are easily identified as such, and are not allowed in competitive events unless sleeved, as they'd be considered "marked". For casual play, you can do whatever you'd like, of course. Energythief 06:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

StarCityGames
Bedford, you recently removed the StarCityGames link, with the following edit summary: "We have long decided to keep this site off here."

Could you please point me to this decision? The only reference to StarCityGames I found was in the archive for this talk page, and it actually seemed to be an agreement for including it.

I'd find an agreement to leave the site out to be highly odd; like it or not, StarCityGames is one of the largest strategy sites on the net. Its Alexa rank is around 45k, which is quite impressive. MiseTings, for instance, is around 450k. --Ashenai 02:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This site has been included from time to time on this list, and is almost always within hours been deleted. Similar sites, like Brainburst, Londes, and Cardshark are not on here, and neither should this one be.--Bedford 02:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain why?
 * Incidentally, Londes and Brainbust have Alexa ranks well over 1 million, which does indeed appear to make them non-notable. Cardshark looks somewhat more promising, with a rank of around 200k, but that still makes it a lot less visited than SCG. So not including those sites would not, in itself, be sufficient reason to keep SCG off, IMO. --Ashenai 02:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've restored the link to StarCityGames. Please don't remove it without either giving a good reason for why it shouldn't be there, or pointing me to a prior consensus determining that it should not be included. Thanks. --Ashenai 10:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the link to StarCityGames should be removed. We should not (and have not) listed merchant sites nor sites that require payment to reach their premium content. Notability is not the only measure we should use - External links - "4. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. 5. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising 6. Sites that require payment to view the relevant content"... and so on. -- Netoholic @ 15:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not completely sold on this. It's not clear to me that SCG is a site to primarily sell products or services; it's mostly a strategy site (and a popular one). It's premium content is only a small part of its strategy articles. I myself read it regularly, but have never bought anything from them, and do not have a premium mmbership (I had one for a month, then decided it just wasn't worth it).
 * In other words, I think a MtG enthusiast should know about SCG, and in fact most of them do. That's why I feel it should be included. --Ashenai 16:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "not clear to me that SCG is a site to primarily sell products or services" - I'm sorry, but that seems a little naive. SCG is clearly a store first, and any Magic written content is designed to attract customers. While that's not an evil goal, it falls short of the External links guideline.


 * Um, why do you believe SCG is "clearly a store first". When visiting the page, it's the articles, front and center, that grab one's attention. Certainly there are links to their store as well, but I see no case for saying that they are primarily a store, and the articles are just to attract people to their store. --Ashenai 17:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles should not just be a collection of external links - each link should have solid value as a unique source of information for the reader. I understand that you believe everyone "should know about SCG", but that is not the goal of Wikipedia articles. I know of plenty of websites I think everyone should "know about", but that is an unacceptable personal agenda. -- Netoholic @ 16:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand. My point was not that people should know about SCG because it's so great; I think it's a decent site, but meh. We should have the link because, to the best of my knowledge, it is the second most popular Magic site on the web. It's certainly not a personal agenda; I'm not a fan, nor affiliated with them in any way. --Ashenai 17:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The words "popular", "Alexa", and "Google" do not appear on External links. If we list SCG only because it's #2, do we remove it when it slips to #3?  Why not list the top 5 or 10 sites?  Who's going to keep track?  The Links presently in the article are good resources of very unique information, without being ones we should avoid.  -- Netoholic @ 22:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You still haven't substantiated your statement that SCG is a link we "should avoid". On the face of it, SCG is a popular strategy site with new and unique content every day. It is a commercial site, but it's certainly not primarily there to sell product. That's not what it's most well-known for, either, and it's certainly not the reason for its popularity.
 * Your "slippery slope" argument is a bit absurd here. I don't know whether we should list the top five sites. I don't really care. But not to list the second-most popular one is absurd. --Ashenai 22:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I also think just by looking at the website, that commercial nature is spectacularly apparent. I listed three reasons above why, according to WP:EL, this site is not appropriate because of its commercial nature.  I've also not seen anywhere that says the WP:EL guideline can be overridden just because a site is popular.  Even if we were to use Alexa rank, that does not show how many hits are to the store vs. the article content.  I did not make a slippery slope argument, I asked several very important questions about on-going maintenance of the links. Long-term maintenance of "popular" websites is one of the reasons that popularity is not a criteria of WP:EL. We avoid so many fights by not doing that. -- Netoholic @ 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that WP:EL should be overridden. I'm saying that the "links to normally avoid" part of WP:EL doesn't apply to SCG, because it is not a "site that primarily exists to sell products or services".
 * While I agree that popularity is, in itself, not sufficient for listing an article, it definitely should be taken into account. Further, SCG is obviously a site with unique content of interest to a large segment of the Magic-playing population.
 * You say that the "commercial nature" of SCG is immediately apprent, and I agree. However, WP:EL says nothing about not linking sites with "commercial natures". The question is whether it is a site that primarily exists to sell products or services. I see no evidence of this; the focus of the site is clearly on the articles. --Ashenai 10:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What Ashenai is saying is making a lot of sense, plus some other points. It says site to "normally avoid", not *always* avoid. It is a guideline and hence it does not have to be so strictly followed. Plus there are plenty of good examples of commericial sites that primarily exist sell products and services yet will still be linked to because they are highly revelvant to the article and will benefit the reader, such as EBay etc....  Mathmo 19:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

By my tally, it seems that Mathmo, Ashenai, and myself are for including SCG. Netoholic and Bedford are against. There's also the consideration that at least two anonymous IP addresses have added SCG in, suggesting that a lot of "casual" Wikipedia browsers notice the "ommission."

Anybody else want to weigh in on this? 3 to 2 isn't the best ratio for a clear consensus... SnowFire 03:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the SCG is notable enougth to be included on the main MTG article, I agree with Ashenia that it is the second most popular site on the web, and that it is not primarly a store. Crazynas 04:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It is primarily a store. SCG doesn't have ads on MTGSalvation praising their articles, they have ads promoting their card-selling. The individual looking to learn more about MTG on Wikipedia would learn nothing abotu MTB by being guided to SCG. If anything, they'd be turned off.--Bedford 14:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I fall into that group of "individual looking to learn more about MTG on Wikipedia", and I certainly did not learn nothing more about MTG from going there or get turned off by SCG. Mathmo 01:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'm also against including SCG on the basis that it is primarily a store, plus a good portion of its articles are premium these days. --Khaim 01:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I visit SCG to learn more about MtG. I have never bought anything from them, nor do I plan to. I had a Premium membership for one month, but no longer; I decided it wasn't worth it. I still read the site every day, however, because of the non-Premium articles, and the forums.
 * I get the feeling that the people who wish to remove it bear grudges against the site for some reason, or have been personally turned off by the site. I don't think that's a good reason to leave the site off, however. --Ashenai 12:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at magiclibrary.net (a place we already currently link to!), on it they say this about SCG: "StarCityGames is one of the best Magic strategy websites on the internet, featuring articles about deckbuilding, playing, and drafting, mostly written by well-known Magic players, tournament-related news, and deck archives." Clearly when a place we already link to shows such very strong support for it we should be including SCG. Mathmo 01:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is yet another reason for it to be included. If you take a look at our sister site wikibooks, the front page of the book about MTG lists SCG as a "Popular Magic Strategy Site". Mathmo 05:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing for someone learning about Magic can gain by readin Star City. It needs to stay deleted. As a matter of fact, we should probably prune a couple of other links. Does MTGNews still need to be on? After all, anything they learn is direct from Salvation. How used is Londes?
 * Please do try and back up this statement that there is nothing someone can learning magic can gain from starcity! As one of those people you refered to as 'someone learning magic' I've gained much from reading that site. Also make sure you sign your comments. With four ~'s Mathmo 01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Casual Players' Alliance and The Math of Magic
I believe the above two sites are non-notable. Neither has an Alexa rank at all. In addition, they have very little Google presence. Could someone who is interested in including the articles (Netoholic, for instance) please explain what makes these sites notable? --Ashenai 16:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Notability" is not a guideline - and Alexa/Google is not the end-all, be-all. External links is our guideline, and those links fit into it well. The CPA is a long-standing alternative player organization, and is extremely unique in that it is for casual players.  This is a necessary contrast to the large number of tournament strategy websites listed here (WP:EL - #4).  "The Math of Magic" is extremely interesting, as it is one of the few formal papers written about Magic (the only other one I know of was about Magic's impact on eBay, which I might try to find). It's quite meaningful and relevant, but would be hard to integrate into the article (WP:EL - #6) as it delves deeply into game theory. -- Netoholic @ 16:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, all right, fair enough. --Ashenai 16:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Status
Could there be an update on what needs to be done for this to be a Featured Article? The last update for the to-do list was at the end of August, 2005. From reading the article is appears at least one remaining task is done (citations). I do question whether info on the storylines and characters should be included in this article beyond what is already there because (1) there already is a page detailing that, and (2) Magic has many characters and storylines culled from both the game itself and the novels associated with it. Including details about all of them (or even just what used to be the "main" subset) would bog down the rest of the article. -- Nis81 18:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There isn't a whole lot more that can be added to the storyline section without going into the specific stories, which are detailed in their own article(s). The current section explains that there are storylines and links to the appropriate article; that seems like what it should do to me. Avedomni 18:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup External Links
I think something needs to be done with the external links section. The offical sites are fine but there are over a dozen unofficial sites which need some organization. First of all, Misethings.com; do we need a link to a parody site? I don't see anything in WP:EL that warrents this. Second, we either need to delete some of these links or else organize them better. Do we need a link to a site for each format? Do we need a link to Australian and UK sites? How many general magic sites are necessary? I don't know where to draw the line but you could probably argue for the inclusion of a dozen more sites just as deserving as some of the ones we already have. If no one wants to delete any links we should at least catigorize them, for example, Strategy, General, Online Play, etc. Remember, the external links section shouldn't be a web directory, it should just be a handful of the most relevant links. --Letslip 02:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if Misetings isn't updated so much any more, I think it's a fairly well-known site anyway. I don't see any issue with letting it stay.


 * As for an issue that it seems has already been dealt with... how hard is the linking policy on sites that include commercial content?  Yes, Starcitygames.com includes a card store, and it also has locked-off content...  but it's also the major non-official Magic site with lots of relevant history that isn't protected by a log-in.  I know that the policy isn't ironclad (especially when the subject is inherently linked to a commerical product), and I think SCG just might qualify as an exception.  (I bring this up because I noticed that Bedford was the one in the talk page discussion on deleting the link.  This isn't meant as an ad hominem, but for those who don't know, I feel it's important to mention that there's a bit of a personal history there.  Bedford was a forum crank at SCG before eventually being banned for his inflammatory postings. He since went on a vendetta against SCG, disparaging them at other forums and generally seething at the admins who run the site.  This doesn't mean that deleting SCG was necessarily incorrect, of course, but it does cast some doubt on Bedford being the one to do it.  Now, if this was the decision of the community to leave the link out, then that's fine, but I can't easily tell from my current standpoint if this was a two-man crusade against SCG or not.) SnowFire 17:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Some changes...
Just to quickly offer any explanation for those curious on my edit:
 * The multiplayer rules aren't variant rules any more, but official. So I removed the footnote.  (Ideally the # of players would say "Normally 2, but possibly more," but that would be too long.)
 * The old Peasant/Pauper description implied that "crap" rares are allowed, which they aren't.
 * I tried to make it more clear that the budget limitations applied mostly to competitive play, and that the budget required was erratic. U/G Madness consisted entirely of commons & uncommons, and could be made for 20-30 bucks; Goblins only required 4 Rares in the Piledrivers at times.  That said, it is true that currently, most decks are quite expensive (mostly thanks to the Ravnica dual lands).  I updated the block quote to refer to Ravnica specifically, since again, there were competitive yet cheap block decks in the past.  (And budget players don't really care about the average cost of a competitive deck, but rather the minimum cost of a competitive deck.)
 * If anyone has a source on the 1995 date for the new art policy, that would be appreciated. I do know that "WotC owns the art" was NOT the original policy, part of the reason why lots of the original ABU-4th edition art changed in 5th edition- WotC didn't own it and the artists refused to sell it back. SnowFire 17:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Artifacts.
In addition to Mark Rosewater writing the series of six articles on the different colors of magic, including multicolor, he wrote an article entitled, "just the artifacts, ma'am" I do not have a link to this as I am at work.