Talk:Magic: The Gathering rules

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Primary Sources[edit]

"This article relies too much on references to primary sources." Due to the nature of this particular article, it would stand to reason that the primary source is, uh, the best source. While I understand the meaning behind the primary source rule here on Wikipedia, I would argue that the intention does not apply in this instance. Asking for alternate sources in an effort to maintain "quality" is ridiculous, as all alternate sources will be getting their information from the primary source in the first place. Amnion (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Player does not draw a card[edit]

Just curious when this changed. I would assume that it was a while ago, since I haven't been playing for a while. In the Alpha/Beta rules the first player would draw like normal...anyone know when this changed? In Defense of the Artist (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harmful anonymous deletions to revert?[edit]

Please investigate these destructive deletions by anon. The oldest is definitely harmful and I restored the deleted content.

  • (cur) (prev) 09:34, 31 December 2009 173.87.191.98 (talk) (31,094 bytes) (→Paying costs) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)
  • (cur) (prev) 09:33, 31 December 2009 173.87.191.98 (talk) (36,340 bytes) (→Beginning and ending the game) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)
  • (cur) (prev) 09:32, 31 December 2009 173.87.191.98 (talk) (37,589 bytes) (→Second main phase) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)
  • (cur) (prev) 09:30, 31 December 2009 173.87.191.98 (talk) (37,690 bytes) (→Timing and the stack) (undo)

MichaelSHoffman (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damage[edit]

The article not explain that damage is 'healed' at end of turn. That seems important. Can't expect new players to just guess that it does... 71.232.131.59 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First section[edit]

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)[reply]

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

First to play?[edit]

"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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Considering changes[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Abilities[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Recent Edit Well, this section certainly grew again. Let's see...

  • Various: Language cleanup.
  • Bushido: Several years old, and only two cards don't have reminder text. One of those two is in Unhinged. Cut.
  • Reach, Deathtouch, Shroud: "Previously unnamed ability"? That is very helpful and relevant.
  • Scry, Fateseal: Has yet to be printed without reminder text, but common enough to stay.
  • Hellbent: Not a keyword. Cut.
  • Suspend, Vanishing: Not a strategy guide, please.
  • Buyback, Storm: Only on a few cards, and always with reminder text. I'm cutting these, although if someone wants to rewrite them I could see a case for leaving them in.
  • Fortification: Only one card with it, has reminder text, and this article is long enough already.

--Khaim 15:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on Fateseal. It's on a whole two cards. Removing. Also, "into play" on echo is incorrect -- "under your control" is correct. While I do agree that this should be, at most, a basic resource, all of the information in it should be accurate. It's fine to simplify things as long as it doesn't make them wrong. On the other hand, other than "into play", the simplification is better than the one I had put in there previously :-) 63.163.61.3 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indestrutable: The name says it all. I removed this section due to the fact that spelling and grammer errors were rampant throughout. ~~rlgoss25 16:23, 3 Oct. 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgoss25 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed listings for a whole bunch of abilities that aren't either common or recent. Bushido was last printed almost four years ago; fading is even worse, and seriously, phasing? We already have Magic: the Gathering keywords for providing a complete listing of abilities; this is a general listing of the most common and recent that shouldn't include such things. GrifterMage (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]




what about the abilty of banding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.31.37 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT[edit]

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? --NewtΨΦ 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. --NewtΨΦ 21:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 BabelAlexandria 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think, actually, it would be interesting historically to mention when the keyword was first "keyworded" and what set it started in. I have such a list and would be willing to post it if there is agreement? Darkelfpoet 19:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually already on List of Magic: The Gathering keywords. I've placed a link to it inside this article. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article, if it is to exist, should cover the history and origin of the rules, rather than merely stating the rules themselves. All the information currently here can be found on Wizards' website. However, a Wikipedia article about the hostory of changes would be useful and unique. --Trinite 23:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article should be moved to wikibooks. Describing the rules is describing how to game works after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.172.112 (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree--this article has been recommended for deletion twice, and it keeps passing on the grounds that someone is going to fix it to be more encyclopedic. After five years it is clear that no one is willing to put in the effort to do so, so if anyone could nominate it again and link to this discussion, that would be great — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.131.66 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Rule[edit]

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)[reply]

Rants[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Summon Old Chestnut[edit]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Even though I just made several improvements to this article, I have to agree that it shouldn't be here. The rules of chess, Go, backgammon and Monopoly have changed, in total, far fewer times than the rules for Magic. The rules of chess haven't changed since the 50-move rule was reinstated; of course that article is going to be more appropriate than this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.163.61.3 (talk)
So Wikipedia just shouldn't cover current events is what you're saying?DrTall (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the casual observer, who has seen the game, but wants to know how it is played? The main article doesn't tell, and the offical rules are too... long. This article is pretty good, in that respect, I think. -Freekee 04:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speed[edit]

71.179.7.141 recently rewrote the Timing section to remove all references to "speed". While he is correct that the term "speed" is technically inaccurate, I feel that newer players understand the mechanic better that way, rather than with a bunch of Magic jargon. Keeping in mind that this page should probably be informative at the sake of pure accuracy, I'm going to change that section back in a few days unless I hear a good reason not to. --Khaim 01:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good as it is now...it's a pretty good explanation. I say leave it. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing using "speed" accomplishes is to confuse players. And I know this, because I'm one of the people who has to continually correct the confusion it causes. It does not help them understand anything better, because the term does not apply in any way shape or form. Using it makes people think it does. Simply as that. If you need to use a term, use "play as a sorcery" or "play as an instant" in every place where you use "speed." You will find that carries all the meaning you intend, and does not produce confusion. JeffJor 18:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


New Rules and Exceptions[edit]

  • Mana costs and colors: All cards except lands have a mana cost. Wrong, there are spells with no mana cost. See Ancestral Vision, for example. This is not cost zero (as the old kobolds), it's no-cost. I would change to include a observation like (with some few exceptions that must be played via alternated ways), but my english is horrible, you can see. And it could be a little confusing.
  • Artifacts: After talking about equipments, fortifications (from Future Sight) could also be cited, just saying that they work the same way, just being attached to lands instead.
  • I would remove Flanking in the list of keywords (it don't affect the gameplay in the same way as flying, protection or haste). Regeneration is much more notable, I think. 200.255.9.38 11:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regeneration is not really a ability, per se. I just removed a section on regeneration that had it as a combat ability. It's not. I'm going to create a keyword action section later that'll include it, unless someone else decides to do that for me. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the mana costs issue, I agree that you are technically correct. However, I think the "error" is minor, and adding a clarification would just make that section confusing. As I have said above, I don't think it's worth ruining otherwise-clear text to mention a handful of exceptions that appear on less than ten cards. --Khaim 14:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History?!?[edit]

This article is not encylopaedic, as it only reflects the current rules. I came here looking to find out if interrupts were phased out with 6th edition, or in a previous revision, only to find no mention of them at all! This is not 1984; the rules have not always been this way. This article should reflect that. --RealGrouchy 02:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that an explanation of historical rules changes is meaningless without an understanding of the rules as they either used to exist or currently exist, especially for a game with rules as complex as Magic. Thus, this article as it exists has its place, but you're right that an explanation of the changes to the rules over the history of the game would be useful. Is anyone willing to attempt to start such a page? I have a reference that can be used to help write it here. GrifterMage (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planeswalker cards[edit]

Someone needs to update the card type section to include Planeswalkers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.139.3 (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summoning sickness / Haste / Comprehensive Rules[edit]

There is a subtlety in the rules concerning what a creature can do on the turn it is brought into play. The article said that a creature may not "tap" on the turn it is brought into play. This is not true. According to the Magic Comprehensive Rules, 212.3f, a player may not use a creature's ability if it contains the "tap symbol" in its activation cost. This may sound like a picky distinction, but a "summoning sick" creature may be tapped to pay a cost under the "convoke" keyword. Further, with the release of the Lorwyn set, there are several abilities with the cost "Tap an [X creature] you control," which may be paid by tapping creatures with "summoning sickness." An example of such a card is Drowner of Secrets.

I've adjusted the article accordingly...feel free to adjust my wording.

Also, one final thing--it might be worthwhile to annotate the article with references to the Comprehensive Rules. Or maybe not. Just a suggestion.

Cpk1971 (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


To further clarify:

A creature is under "summoning sickness" the turn it comes into play, and remains under this effect until the start of the controller's next turn. Normally, this means you bring it into play, and the start of your next turn it loses the sickness. However, if you take control of my creature during the same turn I summoned it and it remains under your control when your turn starts, the sickness is gone (you don't have to wait until the start of MY next turn).

Also, the rule currently states specifically that you may not play abilities with either the 'tap' OR 'untap' symbols **in the activation cost**. (and it can't attack) However, summoning sickness does not prevent the card from being tapped through other means. For example, the "Ancient Silverback" has the activated ability of "(1green) : Regenerate ancient silverback". Since the tap symbol is not part of the activation *cost*, you CAN regenerate it, even though the *effect* of the ability's regeneration causes the card to tap.

Other spells or effects which require you to "Tap X target creatures", for example, as part of their activation cost CAN still use a creature with summoning sickness- the sickness only affects the creature's OWN abilities.

In regards to old sets which predated the (tap) symbol: Older sets did not use the tap or untap symbol. Instead they read verbatim similar to this "Tap to deal 1 damage to target creature" or "Tap [creature's own name] to deal 1 damage to target creature." Although they do not technically contain the (tap) symbol, errata for compatibility purposes says those type of cards should be considered as "(tap symbol) : Deal 1 damage to target creature". In a few rare cases out of print cards will not clearly indicate if the tapping is part of the activation cost, or the effect. In these situations the specific card errata should be consulted for how to handle them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.56.58 (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very close to being fully correct, but: a creature is under "summoning sickness" the turn its controller gains control of it. The formal wording is that the player has not had control of it continuously since the start of their most recent turn. This means that gaining control of a creature renders it summoning sick for the turn and that is why most cards that gain control of creatures for only a turn, such as Threaten give those creatures haste for that turn. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artifacts[edit]

I added some things about Equipments because the text lacked mentions that you can equip only your creatures (on the contrary Auras can enchant all valid target creatures). Maybe Fortifications should be added (I haven't purchased any so I leave it for now) and a simple word for Living Weapons (equipments that come in battlefield with a 0/0 germ creature preattached to them). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Also, even if equipments cannot be 'unequipped' as a single action they can be 'unequipped' as part of 'equipping' another creature. Thus when you equip the other creature the former loses the equipment. Maybe a rephrase is needed here.--Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonbasic Land[edit]

  • I have some questions about the rules for nonbasic land that's not mentioned here. I have land cards that allow me to tap them to make 2 types of mana. (They also require I take a land back into my hand when I put it into play). The first question is, can you play this kind of card without any land, since you would have no land to put back into your hand and simply ignore that? And secondly, is there any restriction to having these cards, or how many you can have? They seem far superior than regular land, and not all that rare, so it seems like people would stockpile several of them in a deck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.223.135 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you play the land, you must return a land from play to your hand. The land you just played would be returned in that case (or the land might be sacrificed, depending on what the card says).
    You can only play four of any card that isn't Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Forest, Snow-Covered equivalent of these, and Ravenous Rats. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keywords[edit]

Having the Lowryn, Shadowmoor and Alara block keywords in the list is rather unnecessary if none of the other keywords are present; standard core set keywords should probably stay, but block-specific ones shouldn't be allowed as it would be an incomplete list. 122.106.222.64 (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing missing;[edit]

I saw under the Lorwyn block, the Prowl ability is not mentioned. Prowl is a relatively confusing ability, considering turn cycle timing, to those who are not well-versed in the official rules. I think it may be worth mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.218.172 (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source[edit]

I see that this article is tagged with "It relies largely or entirely upon a single source.". This should not be an issue in this case as Wizards *is* the only real authorative source (Except for maybe the DCI, I'm up for discussion on that) 78.73.39.138 (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I'd like to see the big tag on top of the article removed. While I don't think the "single source" thing is a valid issue, I agree that the article needs cleanup. To that end, I've gone through the entire article, clarifying things, removing marginal/superfluous stuff (Fortifications, for example, really don't need to be mentioned, as long as there is a single card representing them,) and generally fixing bad English. I've also taken the opportunity to make the article (hopefully) fully M10-compliant.

I'd appreciate someone looking over the article and mentioning anything that might still need to be done. Thanks! --Ashenai (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No response in 24 hours, so I decided to be bold and remove the tag. If you feel it is still necessary, feel free to put it back, but please explain what you feel still needs to be improved to remove it for good. Cheers! :) --Ashenai (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for expansion needed[edit]

I'm tagging the article for expansion needed after the most recent AfD. This article needs at least two more things to be as good as our Rules of chess article. It needs a discussion about how the rules have changed over time, preferably with secondary sources that offer commentary on the reasoning and impact of these rule changes. It also needs tournament rules, and a small summary of Magic: The Gathering formats, which are definitely related to this article. Unfortunately, I currently exclusively edit Wikipedia from my workplace, and my work network blocks access to all references I would need to make these expansions myself. I hope someone else can step up to the plate on this one and make this a much better article. Fieari (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to tag this specifically, but looking at the Rules of chess article versus this one, there is more background to the rules of chess and a better overall introduction, and I think something similar would be helpful, especially in the introduction/first paragraph. I want anyone to be able to come to this page and be able to tell a little bit about what the rules address without having to read the whole article. It might also be nice—and this is advanced stuff—to include what the principles or motivations behind how the rules work in general. --Amorilinguae (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ability cards[edit]

The manna examples were excellent. I would really like to see a link to an example card for each of the 4 ability card types? systemBuilder (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Cleanup 2021[edit]

Since AfD isn't supposed to be cleanup, I'm going to outline the areas that I think still need the most work. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering rules (4th nomination) for original comments on cleanup.

  • Tighten language (ie. reduce & rephrase):
    • Timing section: Unsourced section that needs to be reduced to what's actually important
    • Paying costs section: Another section that needs sources & needs clarity on what's important
    • Types of cards section: This section is lightly sourced. Ideally, most of this could be reduced to a bullet list (except for maybe planeswalkers?)
  • Secondary sources
    • Above sections
    • History section: I've found primary sources on the big rules changes (1994 revised edition, 1995 fourth edition, 1997 fifth edition, 1999 Classic Sixth Edition, Magic 2010 core set) but no secondary sources. Given the age of these updates, coverage might have been offline (game magazines, etc) so this would take some research by another editor.
  • Expansion
    • Aforementioned History section on various rule changes & fan response. Maybe something on banned cards?
  • Images
information Note: Request for image help added at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/Oct 2021#Magic: The Gathering rules. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know your thoughts. Feel free to mark anything as done if you tackle a section. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as images are concerned, perhaps you can ask at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. Regarding references, I've found a few that are not yet included:
Those are all third-party of varying levels of reliability. Mindmatrix 00:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's also:
There should also be coverage of tournaments (mentioned briefly) and judging. Mindmatrix 00:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The rules history section is mostly quoting almost verbatim from the "Simple rules are the holy grail..." source right now. The source is actually a great find, but the text in the Wikipedia should either be our own work or an explicit quotation I believe.
Also I don't like the "...beginning the push toward putting most Magic rules directly on the cards, rather than in the rulebook" part. I know it's in the source, but the next sentence "Instead of special-case rulings governing most uncommon card combinations, general sets of rules and rulings existed that knowledgeable players could use to figure out how types of cards worked together." is much more descriptive of what actually happened here. When you take a look at the oldest of Magic cards (take an Alpha Clone) you can see that many scenarios which can happen in gameplay were anticipated and the way how to handle them was put onto the card. This was necessary in lieu of a solid rules structure as a backbone of the game. 5th Edition rules aimed to provide this backbone, thus making it possible to take most of the rules off the cards. Reminder text is only there remind beginners of basic rules. In fact taking most of the rules off the cards freed up so much space, that it was suddenly possible to add this kind of reminder text. However, this was not "instead of putting the rule in the rulebook" but "in addition to that". OdinFK (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you two sources about how people reacted to what was considered the main change in the M10 rules: Combat Damage not using the stack anymore. They're both from the same website (PlanetMtG, at the time the biggest German MTG website) and are unfortunately both in German. Maximally condensed I would sum it up as both writers being convinced the change would reduce the strategic complexity of the combat. R.I.P. Damage on the stack, Berechtigte Zweifel. OdinFK (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@OdinFK: Do you think you could add that clarification on the rules to the history section? This isn't a game I play so I don't have a ton of familiarity with how it has changed over time (unlike D&D where I know a bunch of the minutiae). Similarly, while I've thrown the German sources into google translate, I don't think I understand enough about the game to be able to sum up the changes to combat. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! OdinFK (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Maybe you want to check if I wrote something that desperately needs me to find a source for. I was around for all those changes except for the ones done for Revised Edition, so this should generally be correct, but of course if something needs to be sourced properly, it needs to be sourced properly... OdinFK (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@OdinFK: Thanks for your update! Follow up question on combat - one of the two sources I used in the gameplay section is from 2006[1] and still refers to using the stack to determine how combat damage is calculated. Since the 2010 update removed that, how is combat damage calculated? Looking at a newer source,[2] I'm not entirely sure how to sum that step up. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This gets a bit nitty gritty, thus I was not really sure if it should be included. There is also actually two parts to it. Firstly in the era of combat damage using the stack, attackers and defenders would announce how they wanted to deal damage with their creatures, then that damage assignment would go "onto the stack" and players got the chance to play cards and abilities before the combat damage resolved. This leads to unintuitive situations, where a creature announces its combat damage, then gets killed, and then the creature's combat damage is dealt regardless. Under the current rules that doesn't happen anymore. When you announce how you want to deal your damage you do that right away, no chance to respond anymore.
The other part of the change is only relevant to an attacking creature becoming blocked by multiple defending creatures. When one creature fights several other you of course have to decide how to assign your combat damage between these blockers. Previously when you put combat damage on the stack you would also explain how you would divide up your damage between the blockers, but you were free to do that in any way you like. Nowadays when an attacking creature becomes blocked by multiple creatures the attacker orders the blockers right away. Both players then get the chance do something, and thereafter damage is dealt to the blocking creatures. You are not completely free in your assignment though. First you need assign enough damage to the first creature to kill, then you can assign the remaining to the next in line and so forth until either all blockers have been killed or the attacker damage has been assigned completely. This makes it sound a bit more complicated then it really is. Creatures are rarely blocked by more than two creatures. Also the timing etc. is rather intuitive once you understand how game turns are structured. OdinFK (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mindmatrix: Thanks for finding sources! I had already used the Popular Mechanics one but I'll take a look at the others (especially the academic ones!). In terms of tournaments, we have Magic: The Gathering Organized Play (which is poorly sourced) & Wizards Play Network (which I've spent a bit of time with trying to improve but haven't really tackled the tournaments subsection). For this article, I think tournaments should only come into play when a rule is introduced (or playtested) at tournaments that then becomes standard for the game. Thoughts? Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sariel Xilo: With respect to tournaments and judging, I meant only that a brief section (say 2 paragraphs) covering tournament rules, judging, and rules enforcement, as well as new rule introductions, providing links to the more relevant articles.
The Internet Archive has Scrye issue #4 online, which has an insert section called "The complete beginner's guide to collectible card games". That section has an article called "Magic: The Gathering - an instant primer" which covers the early rules of the game. Mindmatrix 17:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inquest Gamer covered MTG rules at times. I found issue 17, page 21 has a blurb about a rule change effect on Pestilence. The same issue has a Wizards ad announcing rule changes for the Mirage release on page 59, but I can't find any more third-party info about it. There's also A history of the DC's tournament rules in The Duelist issue 10. (However, this was published by WoTC.) See also: The Duelist and Scrye issue archives (partial) at Internet Archive. I've browsed most of the Scrye issues they have available (not much there regarding rules), but none of the other issues of The Duelist. Mindmatrix 23:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022[edit]

Over the last week or so I've been trimming and adding sources to this article. At this point there are three citation needed tags and four primary source inline tags outside the history section, and everything else is cited to secondary sources.

I think all of the three unsourced claims outside of history can just be removed, as none feel especially important, but I'd like a second opinion before doing so.

For the primary-sourced claims outside of history, I may have gone a little overboard in the formats section, since the things being cited are what Wizards of the Coast does. If you agree, feel free to remove the tag.

@Sariel Xilo and Mindmatrix: Thoughts on the above? Can any of you find secondary sources I can't that support those claims? * Pppery * it has begun... 04:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the edits look good, though please avoid using contractions (see MOS:CONTRACTIONS). I don't have suggestions for other reliable sources, which are notoriously difficult to find for most games despite the glut of online discussion. I would consider restoring (not necessarily wholesale, though) the info about interrupts, as many players had a difficult time with them during the early days of the game. Mindmatrix 01:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The contraction you fixed isn't mine. It was added by Sariel Xilo in Special:Diff/1050240793. On interrupts, the problem is that even the sentence I removed didn't say anything about what they are, nor did its source. I may look into adding some content about them if I can find a source over the next few days. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to contractions, I was actually referring to this edit, in the paragraph that begins "Planeswalkers aren't creatures..."; no big deal though, it's just a minor issue. Regarding interrupts, I found a brief mention in Trading Card Games For Dummies (last two paragraphs of page 23, but there's not much there). There must surely be some mention of them somewhere, perhaps in websites long since discontinued. I've checked a few sources mentioned in earlier discussions above, but did not find anything of relevance. Mindmatrix 15:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re contractions, mistake noted (I failed to scroll down properly when browsing the diffs). Re interrupts, the source there is talking about "interrupt" as a general mechanic in trading card games (using a definition that would include instants), not the specific type of Magic: The Gathering card. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mindmatrix: Thoughts on whether this is a reliable source? Even if it's self-published, it seems to meet when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, assuming that claim that [he] has written nearly 500 strategy articles for [...] Inquest Magazine, which I haven't tried to check, is true. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick skim, I would say it marginally satisfies the criteria assuming the claims are true (I checked a few issues of Inquest from the early 2000s - issues 79, 80, and 88; none of the article were written by him) and that not most of his articles are on primary sources (he lists magicthegathering.com and starcitygames.com as 'media' for which he has written). You may want to get a second opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources. Mindmatrix 20:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I've gotten the article down to the point where everything is cited, and almost everything is cited to a secondary source. Cc Piotrus as original AfD nominator. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery Hmmm. Could you point out two best sources for showing this topic meets WP:GNG, with WP:SIGCOV being kept in mind? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article already survived an AfD a year ago that you withdrew when it had many fewer sources, so I don't see the point of challenging notability now when the article is much better-sourced. Anyway, Trading Cards for Dummies is the source providing the most significant coverage, and I think any of Dicebreaker, PC Invasion, PCGamesN or Popular Mechanics could work as a second significant-coverage-providing source. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Knutson, Ted (November 4, 2006). "The Dynamics of a Turn". MAGIC: THE GATHERING. Retrieved 2021-10-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ "Magic The Gathering Turns Explained: Phase Guide". TheGamer. 2021-09-24. Retrieved 2021-10-17.

GA Review[edit]

Actually closing as failed. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Magic: The Gathering rules/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 11:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links[edit]

Prose[edit]

Lede[edit]

  • The Rules of Magic: The Gathering - see WP:BOLDAVOID. I'd avoid having bold for this article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rules of Magic: The Gathering were originally developed by the game's creator, Richard Garfield, and accompanied the first version of the game in 1993. The rules of Magic have been changed frequently over the years by the manufacturer, Wizards of the Coast, mostly in minor ways. However, major rules overhauls have also been done a few times. - this whole paragraph just sounds like noise. If someone isn't sure what Magic: The Gathering is, they'd have no idea what you were talking about. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure saying "mostly in minor ways", then major sometimes is helpful, or accurate. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In its most-played form, Magic is a game where two players bring their own set of cards, called a deck, and play each other. Players start by drawing a hand of seven cards and then take turns. In a turn a player can play one mana-producing Land, play various types of spells which require varying amounts and colors of mana, and attack their opponent to try and reduce their life total from the starting 20 to zero, thus winning the game. - this is not a very good explaination of the rules, and the lede doesn't go into any details about how the rules have changed, or why we have an article on this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

  • two or more players - lede says two... now you can have more? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • engaged in a battle - they really aren't. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each player has their own deck of cards, either one previously constructed or made from a limited pool of cards for the event.[ - considering we are explaining the rules of the game, we haven't explained that these aren't regular playing cards. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, one of the "Magic Golden Rules" is that "Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence". - who are these quotes from? What does this even mean? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • CNET highlighted - no a person did this, not an organisation. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magic tends to embrace all that house ruling, making it official when it catches on. Commander started as a fan-created format, after all" - who said this, and what does it even mean? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are various formats in which the Magic can be played. - the Magic? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review meta comments[edit]

  • I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)
    • I'm sorry, I got about two paragraphs into the main article before I gave up. The article needs a pretty major copyedit to be written readable for someone not already completely familiar with the game. Failing. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magic:_The_Gathering_rules&oldid=1218561455"