Talk:Magic: The Gathering/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good work, FAC note 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Eternal Formats 

message: ;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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Profit Motive vs. Game Design  ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: This link describes it, and reasons why it is still there. -- Netoholic @ 17:13, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
I always thought it was there to make the Deckmaster name plate look chiped.--70.16.17.42 04:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ballpoint marker glitch 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: This practice (mana-weaving) is illegal. Decks must be fully randomized before play. Andrew Levine 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mana-weaving is NOT illegal so long as you fully and legitimately randomize your deck after mana-weaving.  I believe at least 3 proper riffle-shuffles is the standard for randomization. Applejuicefool 21:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial Aspects

message: 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)
thread_title:  Net decking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Old discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Internet play 

message: Moved a small section on color from deck construction to the colors of magic section. Also added a refrence to colorless and multi color cards. Hope this is agreeable. If anyone wants to expound on multi color cards it may help. --Wirewood Shadow 14:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure that would be a good idea. A page to discuss the general mythology of Magic might be okay, but I think specific pages for creature types is a bit much. --Khaim 23:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors of Magic 

message: This sentence appeared in the article until yesterday:
:Alternate deck construction —  Like chess, many variant forms of playing the game abound.
I changed it to this:
:Alternate deck construction —  Like chess with different pieces, variant forms of the game using different rules for building decks abound. 
It was reverted by Netholic (who has done a lot of great work to bring the page up to high quality), but I have just restored my version. I have three reasons: first, the sentence as it stood read like an introduction to the "Variant Rules" section (which it was, in revisions long since discarded) but it was in fact the second paragraph in that section (after "Multiplayer Rules") so it was out of place. Second, variations revolving around alternate deck construction have nothing at all to do with playing the game differently, as building a deck is a completely separate aspect of the game from its actual play. The distinction is an important one to make, since the sentence immediately follows a paragraph on variant rules which do affect game play itself (i.e. the multiplayer rules), but for which normal deck construction rules hold. Third (and least important), "many X abound" is semantically redundant. Andrew Levine 08:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted because "chess with different pieces" isn't a concept I understand (does it even exist?).  Perhaps the best solution would be to remove the sentence entirely, or move it to the variant rules intro? -- Netoholic @ 19:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing it works, I guess. The concept is pretty self-explanatory since normal deck construction rules are explained already in the article. (As for chess with different pieces, yes, there are a few famous ones; see Chess with unusual pieces and Fairy chess piece.) Andrew Levine 22:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Learn something new every day...  In any case, I moved a coouple sentences up to form an intro for the variant rules section, without the analogy. -- Netoholic @ 18:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would think "chess with different pieces" would be analogous to variant Magic only if homemade/non-standard cards are used.  Variant rules using Magic cards would be like "chess with different rules", not pieces. Applejuicefool 15:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Deck Construction 

message: This card is listed on the Unhinged page, but it doesn't appear in the card lists to my knowledge. Do we have a source on it or is it a hoax? Radiant_>|< 12:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
:Based on personal knowledge alone, the card exists. The fact that it does not appear on any spoilers is part of the joke. SCG has a picture of it, as does magiccards.info. I suggest using those for sources, although I admit that having no official recognition of the card is somewhat problematic. --Khaim 13:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have two in my trade binder. It's real. Andrew Levine 21:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Secret Tech 

message: Removed the following text, by an anonymous user (this was his first and only edit to Wikipedia):
::====Corporate control====
::Unlike traditional board games like Chess or Go, Magic is owned and controlled by a for-profit corporation.
85.226.149.87, do you have any proof that this fact caused any sort of mainstream controversy? If yes, please show us. Thank you! :)  --Ashenai 15:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Text removed from Controversial Aspects

message: Is the game "Magic the gathering: Battlegrounds, do you use cards or is it real time combat, can someone explain it to me?
Pece Kocovski 03:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The video game 

message: So... Should we italicize the name of the game or not? I don't really have a strong preference one way or the other, but it needs to be standardized throughout the article. As it's written, it's roughly half-and-half. Suggestions? Andrew Levine 00:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's see, which of those options is supported by every manual of writing style I've ever read...?  Every reference to Magic or the title of a set (Ninth Edition, Ravnica) must be italicized.  I already went through and did it once, but that was carelessly reverted by someone, so I'll leave it to you. -- Netoholic @ 18:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You italicized all references in the same edits where you reverted several people's work with no justification. If you would like to go back and only make this change, I'm sure no one will revert that. --Khaim 19:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic or ''Magic''? 

message: The article contains erroneous information regarding base sets and expansion sets. The term "Core Set" was not introduced until 8th Edition, and was created to replace the term "base set", not refer to the latest revision of it. The Base Set does not have a "purpose," it IS the game. Expansion sets for Magic are no different from expansion packs for computer games. The Sims is The Sims with or without its seven expansion packs, and Magic is the base set, with or without the expansion sets. Additionally, the proper term for a "block" of three sets is a CYCLE: the Rath Cycle, the Masquerade Cycle, etc., and many expansions are not part of a Cycle at all. Expansion sets can contain ANY NUMBER of cards, and MOST of them contained 350 per large set and 143 per small set, not whatever numbers are currently listed. (preceding comment added by 68.125.130.110 --Ashenai (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a big difference between a computer game's expansions, and Magic expansions. Namely, that when playing against other people, you can encounter expansion cards even if you build your deck only from the base set. This does not happen with computer games, and it's the reason why "the Core Set is the game", is highly debatable, in my opinion. --Ashenai (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of Sets 

message: Since there are many Unofficial Sites based on Magic, should the section be retitled; "Popular Unofficial Sites", or is that not necessary? Also, mtgnews.com still is a popular site for news and also discussion on the game in general; it's a great source of information. So why is it excluded from the list of outside websites?
:As someone who has spent quite a bit of time on MTGnews, I don't see why it isn't on the list. Even if it's lost a lot of energy since January, it's more active than the CPA. -Senori 21:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea was to avoid putting commercial sites on the list. That said, this section could use revision; some of the sites haven't been updated in several years. --Khaim 02:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: (comment above undeleted) Is the "DemonKyoto" who deleted the above comment the same DK?  Anyway, if you disagree with the comment, post a flaming reply, don't just delete it. SnowFire 14:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have nothing to do with that site. I checked my watchlist and thought the comment was vandilism on the main articles page, I didnt notice until just now when Jefffire pointed it out to me that I had edited the talk page by mistake. So sorry everyone ;_; DemonWeb 15:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MTGNews.com 

message: The reverse of the card has changed once this was after when the booster Beta was released the Alpha Cards where different in size and had a different back
As a player i am awear of this as you can not play with alpha cards in your deck unless they are all altha due to this reason
: That's not exactly true. The back has not changed, however the cut of the corners has. Alpha cards are easily identified as such, and are not allowed in competitive events unless sleeved, as they'd be considered "marked". For casual play, you can do whatever you'd like, of course. Energythief 06:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The qutoe under the reverse of the card 

message: I believe the above two sites are non-notable. Neither has an Alexa rank at all. In addition, they have very little Google presence. Could someone who is interested in including the articles (Netoholic, for instance) please explain what makes these sites notable? --Ashenai 16:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Notability" is not a guideline - and Alexa/Google is not the end-all, be-all. Wikipedia:External links is our guideline, and those links fit into it well.  The CPA is a long-standing alternative player organization, and is extremely unique in that it is for casual players.  This is a necessary contrast to the large number of tournament strategy websites listed here (WP:EL#What should be linked to - #4).  "The Math of Magic" is extremely interesting, as it is one of the few formal papers written about Magic (the only other one I know of was about Magic's impact on eBay, which I might try to find). It's quite meaningful and relevant, but would be hard to integrate into the article (WP:EL#What should be linked to - #6) as it delves deeply into game theory. -- Netoholic @ 16:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, all right, fair enough. --Ashenai 16:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casual Players' Alliance and The Math of Magic

message: Could there be an update on what needs to be done for this to be a Featured Article?  The last update for the to-do list was at the end of August, 2005.  From reading the article is appears at least one remaining task is done (citations).  I do question whether info on the storylines and characters should be included in this article beyond what is already there because (1) there already is a page detailing that, and (2) Magic has many characters and storylines culled from both the game itself and the novels associated with it.  Including details about all of them (or even just what used to be the "main" subset) would bog down the rest of the article. -- Nis81 18:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There isn't a whole lot more that can be added to the storyline section without going into the specific stories, which are detailed in their own article(s). The current section explains that there are storylines and links to the appropriate article; that seems like what it should do to me.  Avedomni 18:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article Status

message: Just to quickly offer any explanation for those curious on my edit:
*The multiplayer rules aren't variant rules any more, but official.  So I removed the footnote.  (Ideally the # of players would say "Normally 2, but possibly more," but that would be too long.)
*The old Peasant/Pauper description implied that "crap" rares are allowed, which they aren't.
*I tried to make it more clear that the budget limitations applied mostly to competitive play, and that the budget required was erratic.  U/G Madness consisted entirely of commons & uncommons, and could be made for 20-30 bucks; Goblins only required 4 Rares in the Piledrivers at times.  That said, it is true that currently, most decks are quite expensive (mostly thanks to the Ravnica dual lands).  I updated the block quote to refer to Ravnica specifically, since again, there were competitive yet cheap block decks in the past.  (And budget players don't really care about the average cost of a competitive deck, but rather the minimum cost of a competitive deck.)
*If anyone has a source on the 1995 date for the new art policy, that would be appreciated.  I do know that "WotC owns the art" was NOT the original policy, part of the reason why lots of the original ABU-4th edition art changed in 5th edition- WotC didn't own it and the artists refused to sell it back. SnowFire 17:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes...