Talk:Magic: The Gathering rules

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I went through the entire article with the intention of rewriting it, but heck, it was too damn good already. So I made more minor edits (quite a lot of those, though). Also, a small issue: there's currently no card displayed which demonstrates the Cost: Effect thing. I could put a card like that over by the Abilities section, but I think it would look kind of cluttered. Khaim, how about perhaps replacing the Yotian Soldier with some other 3-mana artifact that has an activated ability? Bottle Gnomes, Nim Replica, Disrupting Scepter, heck, even Staff of Domination if we want to include one that demonstrates the hell out of it. :)

I'd replace it myself, but I don't want to introduce Jpeg compression issues if I don't have to. --Ashenai 10:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, belay that. I somehow managed to miss both the Shivan Dragon and the Aladdin's Ring. --Ashenai 19:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Disrupting Scepter it is. While you're right that other cards later have activated abilities, I think that it won't hurt to have one in the section that actually discusses it.

I reverted your change to the tap section, since I think your wording confused the issue of tapping vs activating. In particular, a lot of new players run into the problem of "If I use Puppeteer to tap my opponent's elf, does he get a mana?" We want to be as unambiguous as possible in this regard. Otherwise I think you did a good job spotting a lot of mistakes I made. Oh, I also decapitalized instant throughout. My thinking is that "instant spell" is wordy enough; we don't need to make it a proper noun on top of that.

And thanks! --Khaim 19:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I saw your edits, and I agree with all of them. I sacrificed some rules precision to make things clearer, but I think your version is more "correct", and is no less clear. Cheers! --Ashenai 20:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 First to play? 2 afd results 3 Considering changes 4 Abilities 5 WP:NOT 6 The Golden Rule 7 Rants 8 Summon Old Chestnut

[edit] First to play?

"A randomly selected player decides which player will take the first turn." Is this confirmed? I think that a random player volunteers to offer his or her deck for "searching", then all players (include him/herself) select a random card from his/her deck. The player which picked the card with the greatest cost is the first to play, then playing continues clockwise. However, I think this is rather informal. Please let me know how other people play it, or what applies to tournaments. --dionyziz 14:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

I can confirm that "a randomly selected player decides which player will take the first turn" is how it's done at tournaments, and in most casual two-player games that I've seen. --Ashenai (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

dionyziz, the method you describe is widespread among Magic players. However, the official rules are as stated in the article. Note that selecting cards from your deck is not random, since it favors people whose decks have higher-casting cost cards in them. --Khaim 14:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I'm wrong. Searching for the specific rule, I found in the official rulebook that, when the game begins, you have to "Roll dice (or flip a coin) to see which player gets to choose who goes first. (...) If you’ve just played a game, the loser of that game decides who goes first." --dionyziz 15:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Here in Brisbane, Australia, we roll dice to determine seating order around the table, re-rolling for draws. Usually we use a twenty sided dice for Grand Melees, as most players have them for life counters. (Also high/low drawing from a normal playing card deck works) MEGANGIRL203.18.196.66 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] afd results

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 September 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Considering changes

I am considering revising several areas for technical accuracy, but would first like to know if this page is intended to be a comprehensive and technically accurate rules guide, or a primer so people can understand the game. If the former, I will go ahead and make the necessary edits (most notably fixing some terminology and cleaning up the sections on Abilities and Keyword Abilities). If the latter, I will only correct the most obvious inaccuracies. Avedomni 00:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that the comprehensive and technically accurate rules guide is 150 pages, I'd go with primer. Wikipedia doesn't need to know about continuous effect layering ;)

Note that some minor inaccuracies are there on purpose, for exactly this reason. There certainly shouldn't be any glaring problems, though. Which ones have you found? --Ashenai 08:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after reading the AfD discussion and looking over the comments there, I realized that it was (mostly) accurate enough for its purpose; and that what I saw as "glaring inaccuracies" were really rather minor, but exagerrated by the amount of time I spend dealing with the rules. A few of the ones that stand out the most are: the total lack of mention of tokens or counters, the persistent ambiguity in the section on First Strike/Double Strike where it fails to mention the two combat damage steps, a lack of distinguishing the steps in the Beginning Phase or End phase, and the ambiguity of the Abilities section which implies repeatedly that the effect occurs "as soon as" the cost is paid or the ability triggers.

Nevertheless, with the realization that this is an encyclopedia entry rather than a "How-to-Play" guide, it seems to serve its purpose rather well. Perhaps it could use a link to the Beginners Rules along with the Comprehensive Rules, rather than clarifying those things here? Avedomni 19:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the inclusion of Replacement Effects as a type of ability.

I'm not convinced that any of the things you mention should be added. For newbies, the "intuitive" understanding of replacement abilities (as a corollary of the Golden Rule) is sufficient. For normal play, there is no need to understand that the keywords "would" and "instead" denote a certain category of ability. --Ashenai 11:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

With regard to replacement effects, I meant that they probably shouldn't be listed in the ability section at all, given that they are just a special case of static abilities which are already listed; as you say, there is no need to include the details of how they work. With regard to the rest I agree; as I said above, the document appears to serve its purpose adequately. Avedomni 21:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Ashenai and Avedomni here--for an overview, we don't really need to get into the various sub-categories of the categories of abilities. An understanding of the Golden Rule should suffice. Section removed. GrifterMage 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Abilities section could probably use some work, yes. I'd agree with taking out the replacement effects and perhaps rewording the other sections. You're right that this section should probably be slightly more explicit about using the stack, although the section on the stack itself does a fair job of explaining it.

The lack of combat damage steps and divisions in the beginning and end of turn phase was intentional. Newer players don't really need to know, and I can barely think of a case where it's important in any case. Ashenai was right; this is a overview, not a comprehensive guide. It should be accurate wherever possible, but I tried to tend towards clarity over strict accuracy. --Khaim 13:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abilities

As for ability changes, i believe that more should be added, there are other abilities that are not mentioned but are attached to common, aswell as usefull cards. For example, for the card Firebolt, it has the ability of flashback where i have challenged people and they do not know what it means. Other abilities include morph, foresight and ect. Hopefully these can be added and explained.

I disagree. These keywords are explained in the appendix of the Comprehensive Rules. There are a lot of them. Let's stick to the important keywords, the ones that have been in almost every set, rather than very specific ones that are no longer used, and were only in a single set or block. --Ashenai 15:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Ashenai; the abilities listed are the ones that appear in almost every set, and are thus the ones that are most important to explain. Anything more would be getting into block mechanics, and we don't want to do that. GrifterMage 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate this point. Old keyword abilities such as Banding and Rampage do not belong here. This page is long enough as it is. A good rule of thumb is that if it wasn't in the last core set, it probably doesn't belong here. Notice none of the block mechanics are listed here. --Khaim 19:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Flanking added, as it has been brought back in the current Timespiral expansion, and hence will probably be legal for roughly at least a year, and will also confuse enough people that they would probably appreciate it being present here.

Thanks! --Khaim 15:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to recent abilities added to that section, I feel they do not meet the above guidelines for inclusion. Horsemanship is limited to the Three Kingdoms set, which is years old and not widely played. Cycling has always appear with reminder text; kicker likewise explains itself. Phasing is almost a decade old. If the original editor would like to argue this, he's welcome to do so, but barring that I'm removing those abilities. --Khaim 15:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT

Can someone explain to me how this article is not an instruction manual? It may not be the official instruction manual, but I don't see how it's not an instruction manual? --Newt_ΨΦ 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Quoting directly from that page: "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes...". This article is not instructing you in how you should play the game, only explaining what the rules are. I and some of the other editors have very carefully maintained the page so that there is no guidance or suggestions, only facts about the rules of the game. For reference, note that articles for draw poker, rules of chess, and similar pages. The precedent seems clear to me: explaining the rules is okay, but suggesting strategies is not. --Khaim 21:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And continues, "...This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." I can see your point, but I'm not exactly sold on the concept. Advice would fall under WP:NPOV, but this seems a separate policy. --Newt_ΨΦ 21:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the listing of instruction manuals is not meant to say that nothing that could possibly be called an instruction manual should be on Wikipedia; rather, it is an example of something that almost always falls foul of the previous sentence. Also, I believe that this is, in fact, the same policy as WP:NPOV, but restated in a more specific context. Consider that there really is no way to write instructions that are not POV. --Khaim 18:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In order to make this article more encyclopeadic I really think you need to discuss the changes that have occured. Talk about Portal and it's purpose. Mention when EVERY addition occured. The section on Shadow doesn't tell me what set it started in? And you need to describe how WotC started changing basic things like Enchant Creature -> Enchament - Aura. Right now it is more instructional (still allowed as a description - you're not giving out advice or strategies, good job) and a LOT could be done to make it more encyclopeadic. No section on errata? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Golden Rule

Being that this is the article on the rules/play structure of Magic, I'd assume that there would be some sort of reference to the Golden Rule, normally the first rule any new player should learn. --Insane 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rants

I think there really should be a link to the Wizards' rule page.... 68.20.39.92 13:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe that's why there is such a link, and it has been there since the page was created. --Khaim 15:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

---

The introduction sucks. It tells you nothing of value about the game.

[edit] Summon Old Chestnut

With respect to those who have contributed their time and expertise to this article, it does not belong on Wikipedia. An encyclopaedia entry should be about the subject; this article is the subject. While it gives us the rules of Magic, it tells us nothing about the rules of Magic. Except for the parts of it that violate NPOV. :)

An encyclopaedia entry about "Magic: The Gathering rules" should be based on, say, who created the rules, and when, and why. Which, I grant you, would be deeply trivial, but there you go.

In any case, the rules of the game change constantly, and the official M:TG website always carries the complete, current version. So even as a resource or manual, this article is of questionable value. Jack Garfield 08:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rules of chess, Rules of Go, Backgammon, Monopoly (game)... I didn't have time to find more. --Khaim 00:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A list of other inappropriate Wikipedia articles does not constitute a justification of this inappropriate article. As my son might say, "They did it, so why can't I?" :) Jack Garfield 23:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what. If you can get Rules of chess, Rules of Go, or a similar page deleted then I'll nominate this for deletion myself. Otherwise no. If you want to put it on AfD (again) then I'll find some longer arguments, but I really don't feel like hashing things out once more. --Khaim 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)