Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
Pharotek (talk | contribs)
m Remove unknown param from WP Magic: The Gathering: importance
Tag: AWB
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{FACfailed}}
{{notice|{{find sources}}}}
{{todo}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=05:30, 19 October 2005
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Magic: The Gathering/archive1
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=25872331


|action2=GAN
Be aware that as of December 31st, 2004 this article is approaching or has exceeded the 32K recommended max size.
|action2date=14:32, 2 February 2006
|action2link=Talk:Magic: The Gathering/GA1
|action2result=listed
|action2oldid=37845804


|action3=GAR
|action3date=3:19, 2 December 2008
|action3link=Talk:Magic: The Gathering/GA2
|action3result=delisted
|action3oldid=253939624


|action4=PR
==Page size: links and expansion sets==
|action4date=19:31, 28 April 2009
|action4link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Magic: The Gathering/archive1
|action4result=reviewed
|action4oldid=286603752


|action5=GAN
There risks being too many expansions listed on this page making it unwieldy. Perhaps it would be better as a sidebar or linked to a separate page.
|action5date=01:12, 11 August 2009
:[[User:Fvincent|fvincent]] 15:43, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)
|action5link=Talk:Magic: The Gathering/GA3
|action5result=listed
|action5oldid=307204361


|topic=Everydaylife
:I think this article in general is becoming unwieldy. It seems every topic is getting expanded sans temperance. Some summarizing and splitting up of the article is called for IMO. At least the stuff on tournament play and DCI (etc.) could be split off into [[Duelists' Convocation International]] or some such. Also, there really shouldn't be more than handful of external links -- some of them seem to be adverts. --[[User:Mrwojo|Mrwojo]] 18:55, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
|currentstatus=GA
|otd1date=2023-08-05|otd1oldid=1168625927
}}
{{afd-merged-from|Jace Beleren|Jace Beleren|03 February 2014}}
{{afd-merged-from|Planeswalker|Planeswalker|18 October 2013}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Games|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Magic: The Gathering}}
{{WikiProject Board and table games|importance=high}}
}}
{{todo|5}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
: With the single possible exception of FindMagicCards.com, none of the external links are sites associated with selling Magic cards (well, the official sites don't count, since we definitely want those up there). The external links present are probably the largest, most linked, and most useful Magic sites on the Net; I don't think those really pose a problem. I am surprised, though, that we do not yet have an article for the DCI. --[[User:Lowellian|Lowellian]] 19:08, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 6
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Magic: The Gathering/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== None of the colors is better than the rest ==
: StarCityGames.com is also a site that sells Magic cards. However, it is one of the most important strategy sites on the Net, with articles contributed by many pro players, and it was even tagged by Wizards of the Coast to do the official coverage for the 2003 Type I Championships. So I think the link should stay there. --[[User:Lowellian|Lowellian]] 19:46, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)


Hi everyone. I suggest to add the information to the article that none of the colours in the game is better than the rest, that all of them have their own advantages and disadvantages. Could someone please do this? Thanks! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/181.1.220.13|181.1.220.13]] ([[User talk:181.1.220.13#top|talk]]) 14:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: Ah, yes I agree. I was a bit cranky yesterday. I don't think there's a problem, just need to make sure that poor external links don't dilute the important ones. For a different reason, the only one I think could go at this point is that direct link to Wizards.com because there are already two official MTG links that take you to WotC and we've got our own page for WotC. Not a big deal though. --[[User:Mrwojo|Mrwojo]] 15:05, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
:This is unsourced and unsubstantiated. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 14:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
::Although it is arguably corect and uncontroversial. But The anon didn't specify where to add it, and why should we bother at all. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 07:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
:::I think this paragraph actually mostly comes down to the anon's intent:
:::"The Research and Development (R&D) team at Wizards of the Coast aimed to balance power and abilities among the five colors by using the Color Pie to differentiate the strengths and weaknesses of each. This guideline lays out the capabilities, themes, and mechanics of each color and allows for every color to have its own distinct attributes and gameplay. The Color Pie is used to ensure new cards are thematically in the correct color and do not infringe on the territory of other colors."
:::As a matter of fact "none of the colours in the game is better than the rest" is also not literally true anyway. It is certainly what Wizards strives for and maybe even achieves to a laudable degree, but then Blue is considered the most colorful in old formats by almost everybody. Also there have been standard formats where colors stood head and shoulders above the rest or a single color was barely playable. So to sum it up, I think the article is pretty much fine where it is right now in this regard. [[User:OdinFK|OdinFK]] ([[User talk:OdinFK|talk]]) 09:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
:Blue ;D [[User:Atomic putty? Rien!|Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) ]] ([[User talk:Atomic putty? Rien!|talk]]) 14:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
::Hello again. I come to revive this topic. In a certain degree, it's practically true the statement: "None of the colors is better than the rest" because if you check clearly, everyone thinks that maybe Red and Green are the best in terms of strength and direct damage. But even Blue and White aren't less just because they are defense and healing counterparts. Blue and White also have their own way of attacking which is different from Red and Green (which is direct damage at the opponent's creatures and the opponent himself) that are also useful, such as the venom cards and emptying the deck to your opponent. I believe that this statement: "None of the colors is better than the rest" should be somewhere explained thoroughly in the article because it's important. What do you guys think? Please reply! Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/190.231.171.103|190.231.171.103]] ([[User talk:190.231.171.103|talk]]) 15:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Still waiting for a reply... [[Special:Contributions/181.110.70.239|181.110.70.239]] ([[User talk:181.110.70.239|talk]]) 08:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Well, if you think about it "none of the colours are better than the rest" is a statement, that cannot be proven in this matter-of-fact way. Magic is too big, dynamic and diverse for such a statement to mean a whole lot. You might find statements such as "In Legacy and Vintage blue is generally considered to be the most powerful colour". This is about perception, not facts and this might be added somewhere, but it is probably outside the scope of this article here.
::::The most meaningful thing going this direction, that I can think of to put in this article, is something like "Magic designers strive to balance the power level of the colours. Due the inherent difficulty of this task perfect balance is rarely achieved, but which colour ends up being strongest shifts over time." You can probably find some remark of Mark Rosewater to that end. If you want it in the article you got to dig for yourself, though. [[User:OdinFK|OdinFK]] ([[User talk:OdinFK|talk]]) 13:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


== Rarity Section. ==
:: I agree about the WotC link, which I've removed. --[[User:Lowellian|Lowellian]] 18:55, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)


Hi, i recently made an image that describes the amount of common, uncommon, rare and mythic rare cards contained in Magic expansions. The italian section of Wikipedia has s rarity section that talks about these different rarities and the foil cards.
I took the plunge and actually created new pages for the base sets and expansions. I also took the DCI, made it its own page and moved all tourney info there. I hope people find this makes the page more manageable.
:[[User:Fvincent|fvincent]] 21:56, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)


I'll leave the image here in case it can be useful to someone that wants to add that section here too.
:: Thanks for polishing the edits, Lowellian. And good idea about merging the set lists.
::[[User:Fvincent|fvincent]] 06:52, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)


[[File:Magic_Rarities_across_Expansions.svg|Magic Rarities across Expansions]] [[User:Icovsworld|Icovsworld]] ([[User talk:Icovsworld|talk]]) 21:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Unweildy is right. I tried doing some cleaning up on this article and found it to be completely incoherently structured. Terms like "permanent" and "mana" and "colorless" come flying at the reader before they have ever been defined. I cleaned up "permanent" a bit, but I think this page lacks a clear vision. Is this a page to tell people what magic is, so they know what their 14-year-old son is asking for for X-mas? Is it supposed to teach them the rules? Is it supposed to be a history lesson for lovers of the game? Of the tournament scene?


:{{Ping|Icovsworld}} It seems the data are incorrect. For instance since ''Shards of Alara'' set there are no rare cards, but you can see in [[List of Magic: The Gathering sets|this article]] that this is not the case; there are other major errors in the image though. --[[User:Phyrexian|Phyrexian]] [[User talk:Phyrexian|ɸ]] 05:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I think the folks typing in "Magic: The Gathering" on Wikipedia search are not really interested in the different between local and global enchantments. Anyone else agree here?
::It was probably due some incorrect filtering i've done on the dataset, i didn't know about this other article with all the correct data, i'll use it and redo all the numbers correctly, thanks! [[User:Icovsworld|Icovsworld]] ([[User talk:Icovsworld|talk]]) 09:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
::it should be fine now! [[Special:Contributions/93.41.120.168|93.41.120.168]] ([[User talk:93.41.120.168|talk]]) 13:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
:Without information on how this chart is being constructed and what the data sources is, it fails [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] for use on Enwiki. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 13:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


== Categories ==
::[[User:Gcb|gcb]] 15:45, Nov 22, 2004 (PST)


For those familiar with the game, collecting and playing or both, the game contains cards of vampires and angels. I’d like to see this game added to Category:Vampires in games and Category:Angels in popular culture [[User:Twillisjr|Twillisjr]] ([[User talk:Twillisjr|talk]]) 17:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
== Card Photos ==


:Categories should be defining, per [[WP:CATDEF]]: {{tq|A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic}}. Can you demonstrate that sources regularly refer to the fact that M:TG contains vampires and angels? M:TG contains nearly every fantasy (and many scifi) tropes that exist. We could put a million categories for dragons, vampires, elves, dwarves, orcs, angels, gods, demons, goblins, on and on. They are not defining. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 17:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Just a warning: The Magic card images posted (6 magic cards from various editions) ''may'' fall under copyright. I say "may" because I don't know for sure. [[User:Mike Church|Mike Church]] 15:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


== Life-total, or life total? ==
:They do fall under copyright, but historically the copyright holders have been lenient in allowing websites to use images of cards; most of the popular strategy and vendor websites (Star City, Brainburst, Find Magic Cards, Anycraze) post full images of thousands of individual cards, and I cannot recall a single case where Hasbro or Wizards asked a site to take their images down. Six cards should be alright. [[User:Andrewlevine|Andrewlevine]] 17:03, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


In the article, both versions are used. We should standardize, and use just one version. I had never seen "life total" spelled with a hyphen before reading this article, so my initial impulse would be to use the version without the hyphen. Thoughts? [[User:Wafflewombat|Wafflewombat]] ([[User talk:Wafflewombat|talk]]) 01:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::thats interesting because I added a picture of a black lotus on this page a few months ago and some paranoid pedian complained and took it down. [[User:Vroman|Vroman]] 19:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


'''Update:''' I went ahead and standardized to "life total." Feel free to revert if there's a problem with this. [[User:Wafflewombat|Wafflewombat]] ([[User talk:Wafflewombat|talk]]) 00:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:Don't know if I like the pictures posted, mostly because they don't show the card borders. I may come back and edit, be nice to show a selection of cards (Alpha, 8th edition, Unglued, etc.). -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] 21:46, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

==Mike Church==

I removed this section:

''One outspoken critic of Magic, a designer named Mike Church (known for the card game [[Ambition (card game) | Ambition]]), disagrees. Church, who referred to Magic in [[2003]] as a "money-spending contest dressed up as a fantasy game", described mana-screw as a "gaping flaw in the design of [Magic]... that should've been fixed in the first day of playtesting". As he quipped, "mana-screw makes a whole 20 minutes of play not fun, and that's just bad design. How hard is it to have two piles, one for land, and one for spells, and let the player choose which to draw from?" However, critics of Church have pointed out that, according to a [[Weblog | blog]] post, he admits to not having played Magic since [[1998]], and therefore should be discounted as a credible voice in the contemporary Magic-playing community.''

This was written by anonymous user [[137.22.4.102]], who is ''(thought likely to be, by [[User: Andrewlevine]])*'' [[User:Mike Church|Mike Church]] (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Community_card_poker&action=history page history on Community card poker], which he edited from the same IP range). It is silly for the article to refer to "one outspoken critic of Magic" whom 99.9999% of the people who play Magic have never heard of, as if he were somebody well-known for his critiques. It should be self-evident why Church extensively quoting himself is not appropriate here. He has designed a few games which are still well under the radar of people in the gaming comunity, and I hope he does not take it the wrong way when I say that he is not (yet?) famous enough to warrant quoting himself the way he did.

If anyone should be quoted on why mana-screw is a design flaw, it should be Zvi Mowshowitz, who is a very well-known critic of Magic's fundamental design from within the game's own community, and who is very well-known and respected among Magic players. I will see if I can dig up a few quotes from him on the subject. [[User:Andrewlevine|Andrewlevine]] 03:45, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(*parenthetical added by another user)

:137.22 is the IP range of [[Carleton College]], actually. So, yes, there is a high probability that the modification came from someone in Carleton. ''Do you have any idea how many students at this school use Wikipedia???'' Probably hundreds.

:If you had actually read that paragraph when removing it, you would have seen that it, in fact, attacked me by saying that my not having played since '98 makes me not a credible voice on the subject. In fact, it was a relatively ''pro-Magic'' selection, all said. I read that piece (this page is on my watchlist) myself and was going to remove parts of it, particularly the part that called me "not a credible voice".

:I'm going to restore at least some of that content, though I'll keep your objections in mind. [[User:Mike Church|Mike Church]] 06:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

::The fact that the earlier edit came from your college's IP range and was not necessarily your own words has been noted.

::I would like to request that you stop adding your own commentary to the article. I read what you wrote about self-promotion on your user page, and while I agree with it when applied to the outside world, it is not appropriate in Wikipedia.

::And of course I "actually read" every word in the pargraph that I (and [[User:Isomorphic|Isomorphic]] after me) removed, including the criticism. The whole point is that, by your own admission, you have not played the game in about six years (and it shows in your edits, like the one that stated that Timetwister was necessary to compete in Type I). As an analogy, if someone adds to the article [[genetic engineering]] a paragraph that begins "Noted genetic engineering critic [[Jeremy Rifkin]] has claimed...", this attribution is valid, because everyone working in that field of study, and the related ethical debate, has heard of Rifkin. If I were to insist on adding "Rifkin's claims have been rebuffed by Andrew Levine, who has argued...", then that makes no sense, becuase I am a nobody who is relatively uninformed on the subject. [[User:Andrewlevine|Andrewlevine]] 08:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:::I'm decidedly '''not''' a nobody in the field of game design who's relatively uninformed on the subject. However, your point that I'm relatively uninformed on Magic ''as it is now'' stands and is well-taken. It seems that WotC has taken steps (for example, the expanding the mulligan) to improve their game dramatically ''(I still think-- no, know, because it is a fact--that the patent is a f*kin' swindle, but that's another story)'' and it's unfair for one like me, who is not informed on those developments, to comment except without further research. I won't reintroduce the comment if it's deleted. [[User:Mike Church|Mike Church]] 08:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

::::I never said that you were "a nobody in the field of game design", as you clearly aren't; just someone uninformed about Magic. I am glad that we have gotten this issue resolved. (And I agree with you about the patent.) [[User:Andrewlevine|Andrewlevine]] 08:37, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


----
Could www.Magic-League.com be added to the "Playing Magic on the Internet-section" and/or to the related links section? E-League actually hasn't got a ratings system anymore. We also run some tournaments with Magic Workstation, another online play application. But it is still in beta stages. [[User:Koen|Koen]] 20:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

----
'''Question about the patent:''' I added a graf about the WotC suit against Nintendo. The suit had the potential to determine the validity of the patent, but it was settled early. I'm not enough involved in CCG's to know whether there have been any other suits. If no other suits have been filed, or if every suit filed has been settled or is still in an early enough stage that there's been no ruling on that issue, then it would be accurate for us to add, "The validity of this controversial patent has never been ruled on by a court." If that statement is correct, it would be useful information to add to the discussion of the patent. Given my limited knowledge of the field, the best I could do was to allude to the issue by noting that patents issued by the Patent Office are subject to judicial review. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 04:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

:Someone I know (who's big into CCGs, and recently asked me to join an open-source CCG project; since it would be open-source it wouldn't run afoul of the patent) said that [[Decipher Games]] beat them on the patent issue. However, I couldn't stir it up myself. Most companies that do CCGs just buckle and pay royalties, since it's significantly less costly than a legal fight. WotC are essentially thugs ruling by fear, on this issue.

:There's no way the patent would stand if basic logic were applied. What they've patented essentially boils down to:

:*Modular play (i.e. there exists a large set of game components of which each player uses a subset, and players have a personal stake in which subset they choose) using collectible (physical or electronic) items.

:*The "tap" mechanic. That is, any mechanic used to indicate that an object's powers have been temporarily used, at least involving rotation of the card to a new orientation. (I'm pretty sure a mechanic such as shading the "card", in an online version, would skirt around the patent).

:*The system by which cards are partitioned into a set of randomized game components (library), a set at a player's disposal (hand), and a set that is public knowledge and affects the game (in play, graveyard).

:Not a single one of these things did Garfield or WotC invent. Historical fact shows that much of what's now protected was low-hanging fruit that actually predated Magic by decades: LARPs use modular play with collectible items; tap-like mechanics existed in pre-Magic RPGs; finally, many traditional card games used "libraries" (not by that name) and "hands". At any rate, even the CCG genre itself was not invented by Garfield or WotC; Magic simply ''popularized'' the genre.

:Wizards should definitely have control of their art, rules text, basic game structure, flavor text, and some of the items unequivocally of their own invention (i.e. "Weatherlight" and the name "Lhurgoyf") but not a whole genre. There's not a chance the patent could stand in any reasonable court. However, challenging WotC would be pretty damn expensive, and few companies can afford the risk. If you don't have enough HP and STR to spear the fucker, you pay the troll to cross the bridge. [[User:Mike Church|Mike Church]] 10:24, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Moved from article:
''The decision to patent an ''entire genre'' of game was highly controversial. While none would argue that the company should own the rights to Magic's particular rules, art, flavor text, game structure, and other copyrightable materials, the patent covers many game mechanics that neither Garfield nor Wizards invented, but which had not been patented before. Some of these game mechanics (modular play using collectible items, physical manipulation of objects to indicate temporary "tap"ping of their powers) predated Magic by decades in other game genres and are still therein used, unchallenged by Wizards. However, all who own collectible card games pay a royalty based upon this patent. While the patent's scope would likely be dramatically reduced if it were used in a lawsuit, the costs of such a legal challenge would by far exceed the royalty rates. In this sense, Wizards uses the patent to exact tributes, ruling by fear.''

== Kai Budde ==
The description next to the Kai Budde link doesn't seem to follow NPOV, although I don't know (which is why I am not removing it myself). I don't follow the tournament scene. Whatever happened to Jon Finkel? - [[User:RealGrouchy|RealGrouchy]] 00:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:Just about ''anybody'' who's followed Pro Magic in the last few years can confirm this is true. Kai Budde has shattered just about every record imaginable, won ridiculously far more Pro Tours than anyone else, won in every single format and in every type of tournament...the statistics are rather overwhelming. [[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;[[User:Lowellian|Lowellian]] ([[User talk:Lowellian|talk]])[[<nowiki></nowiki>]] 04:40, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

== Septing ==
"People who own more than $1000 in Magic cards are empirically more likely to get septed than those who do not, by a margin believed to be roughly 75 percent."
what the hell is this about? [[User:Vroman|Vroman]] 02:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
: I don't know either, but I reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Magic:_The_Gathering&oldid=4777960 it]. Someone trying to be funny I suppose. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] 04:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

==Magic: The Gathering Sets Project==
How about doing an article about every Magic set? That's what I'm going to do. Some help is needed though. Want to participiate? See [[User:Grue/MTGSets]] for more information. [[User:Grue|Grue]] 09:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== From Ravnica==
''Ravnica: City of Guilds, is set to be the major release for Magic the Gathering's 2005/2006 block. The release date is set to be on 7 Oct, 2005. The codename for this set is "Control", and the other 2 minor set are "Alt" and "Del".''
Can this be included here? It seems too small for its own article and I have no way to verify it's true or not. [[User:MacGyverMagic|[[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|<sup>[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]]</sup>]] 13:38, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
:Well, considering it ''was'' on magicthegathering.com, I'd think it'd be as true as any other information about future sets. <strike>However, it doesn't look like there's any real section for it on there. And given the size of the article, it probably isn't wise to include a list of sets on the page.</strike> -[[User:Senori|Senori]] 04:04, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) Actually, looks like the important pieces of that are included in [[Magic: The Gathering sets]], which should probably be linked in a more prominent part of the page. -[[User:Senori|Senori]] 04:13, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

== Colors of Lands==

The article says "''Lands are colorless'', and are never considered spells." (my italics)

Is it accurate that Lands are colorless? [[User:RJFJR|RJFJR]] 14:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
: Yep, they are. [[User:Grue|Grue]] 16:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::Thank you for confirming this. [[User:RJFJR|RJFJR]] 16:52, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== Game Infobox==
If Magic has Medium rules complexity and strategy depth, what are some examples of games with High? Very few games have been infobox'd, so I have no idea what the scale we're looking at is. Also, is "Some" a consistent term when the other terms are things like High/Medium/Low? Shouldn't all three categories, in fact, be High/Medium/Low? (I noticed [[Monopoly (game)]] uses "Easy" for Rules Complexity, but I'll take it up with that Talk page :) ) [[User:209.114.249.74|209.114.249.74]] 20:01, 22 Dec 2004 (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? --[[User:Vishahu|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! --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk: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. --[[User:Paraphelion|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). -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk: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. --[[User:Paraphelion|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. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk: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. [[User:Pharotek|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. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk: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. [[User:Pharotek|Pharotek]] 16:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

: Sure it is, it describes two types of play &ndash; 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 [[Duelists' Convocation International|DCI]] one). -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk: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? [[User:Pharotek|Pharotek]] 16:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

Great work!!! [[User:Pharotek|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''"? -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk: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. --[[User:Paraphelion|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. --[[User:Paraphelion|Paraphelion]] 16:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:08, 12 April 2024

Good articleMagic: The Gathering has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 19, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 2, 2006Good article nomineeListed
December 2, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 28, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
August 11, 2009Good article nomineeListed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 5, 2023.
Current status: Good article

None of the colors is better than the rest[edit]

Hi everyone. I suggest to add the information to the article that none of the colours in the game is better than the rest, that all of them have their own advantages and disadvantages. Could someone please do this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.220.13 (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is unsourced and unsubstantiated. -- ferret (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is arguably corect and uncontroversial. But The anon didn't specify where to add it, and why should we bother at all. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this paragraph actually mostly comes down to the anon's intent:
"The Research and Development (R&D) team at Wizards of the Coast aimed to balance power and abilities among the five colors by using the Color Pie to differentiate the strengths and weaknesses of each. This guideline lays out the capabilities, themes, and mechanics of each color and allows for every color to have its own distinct attributes and gameplay. The Color Pie is used to ensure new cards are thematically in the correct color and do not infringe on the territory of other colors."
As a matter of fact "none of the colours in the game is better than the rest" is also not literally true anyway. It is certainly what Wizards strives for and maybe even achieves to a laudable degree, but then Blue is considered the most colorful in old formats by almost everybody. Also there have been standard formats where colors stood head and shoulders above the rest or a single color was barely playable. So to sum it up, I think the article is pretty much fine where it is right now in this regard. OdinFK (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blue ;D Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I come to revive this topic. In a certain degree, it's practically true the statement: "None of the colors is better than the rest" because if you check clearly, everyone thinks that maybe Red and Green are the best in terms of strength and direct damage. But even Blue and White aren't less just because they are defense and healing counterparts. Blue and White also have their own way of attacking which is different from Red and Green (which is direct damage at the opponent's creatures and the opponent himself) that are also useful, such as the venom cards and emptying the deck to your opponent. I believe that this statement: "None of the colors is better than the rest" should be somewhere explained thoroughly in the article because it's important. What do you guys think? Please reply! Thanks! 190.231.171.103 (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for a reply... 181.110.70.239 (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you think about it "none of the colours are better than the rest" is a statement, that cannot be proven in this matter-of-fact way. Magic is too big, dynamic and diverse for such a statement to mean a whole lot. You might find statements such as "In Legacy and Vintage blue is generally considered to be the most powerful colour". This is about perception, not facts and this might be added somewhere, but it is probably outside the scope of this article here.
The most meaningful thing going this direction, that I can think of to put in this article, is something like "Magic designers strive to balance the power level of the colours. Due the inherent difficulty of this task perfect balance is rarely achieved, but which colour ends up being strongest shifts over time." You can probably find some remark of Mark Rosewater to that end. If you want it in the article you got to dig for yourself, though. OdinFK (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rarity Section.[edit]

Hi, i recently made an image that describes the amount of common, uncommon, rare and mythic rare cards contained in Magic expansions. The italian section of Wikipedia has s rarity section that talks about these different rarities and the foil cards.

I'll leave the image here in case it can be useful to someone that wants to add that section here too.

Magic Rarities across Expansions Icovsworld (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Icovsworld: It seems the data are incorrect. For instance since Shards of Alara set there are no rare cards, but you can see in this article that this is not the case; there are other major errors in the image though. --Phyrexian ɸ 05:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably due some incorrect filtering i've done on the dataset, i didn't know about this other article with all the correct data, i'll use it and redo all the numbers correctly, thanks! Icovsworld (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it should be fine now! 93.41.120.168 (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without information on how this chart is being constructed and what the data sources is, it fails WP:V and WP:RS for use on Enwiki. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

For those familiar with the game, collecting and playing or both, the game contains cards of vampires and angels. I’d like to see this game added to Category:Vampires in games and Category:Angels in popular culture Twillisjr (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories should be defining, per WP:CATDEF: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. Can you demonstrate that sources regularly refer to the fact that M:TG contains vampires and angels? M:TG contains nearly every fantasy (and many scifi) tropes that exist. We could put a million categories for dragons, vampires, elves, dwarves, orcs, angels, gods, demons, goblins, on and on. They are not defining. -- ferret (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Life-total, or life total?[edit]

In the article, both versions are used. We should standardize, and use just one version. I had never seen "life total" spelled with a hyphen before reading this article, so my initial impulse would be to use the version without the hyphen. Thoughts? Wafflewombat (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I went ahead and standardized to "life total." Feel free to revert if there's a problem with this. Wafflewombat (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply