Magic: The Gathering Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Magic: The Gathering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Magic: The GatheringWikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The GatheringTemplate:WikiProject Magic: The GatheringMagic: The Gathering articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

• Archive1 - November 2002 through December 2004

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)

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

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]

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The patent information was moved to Collectible card game#Patent. 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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I removed the "Playing Magic on the Internet part. I think the section is not needed.

• 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.

Hope everyone agrees. -- Netoholic @ 14:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.