Be aware that as of December 31st, 2004 this article is approaching or has exceeded the 32K recommended max size.

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.

fvincent 15:43, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

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. --Mrwojo 18:55, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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. --Lowellian 19:08, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

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. --Lowellian 19:46, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

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. --Mrwojo 15:05, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree about the WotC link, which I've removed. --Lowellian 18:55, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

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.

fvincent 21:56, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for polishing the edits, Lowellian. And good idea about merging the set lists.

fvincent 06:52, Mar 6, 2004 (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?

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?

gcb 15:45, Nov 22, 2004 (PST)

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. Mike Church 15:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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. Andrewlevine 17:03, 26 Mar 2004 (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. Vroman 19:58, 26 Mar 2004 (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.). -- Netoholic 21:46, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I removed this section:

One outspoken critic of Magic, a designer named Mike Church (known for the 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 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)* Mike Church (see 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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.) 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. Koen 20:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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. JamesMLane 04:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mike Church 10:24, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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? - 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. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:40, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

"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? Vroman 02:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know either, but I reverted it. Someone trying to be funny I suppose. -- Netoholic 04:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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. Grue 09:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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|Mgm|^(talk)]] 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. 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. -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. -Senori 04:13, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

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

Is it accurate that Lands are colorless? RJFJR 14:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep, they are. Grue 16:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming this. RJFJR 16:52, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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 :) ) 209.114.249.74 20:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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.

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...

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 Wikipedia: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 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)

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)

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)[reply]

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 [s_coupon Ashnod's Coupon.) — Dan Johnson 01:49, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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)