Talk:Magic: The Gathering rules

message: "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)
thread_title: Primary Sources

message: 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)
thread_title: First Player does not draw a card

message: 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)
thread_title: Harmful anonymous deletions to revert?

message: 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)
thread_title: Damage

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: First to play?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  WP:NOT 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Golden Rule 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Speed 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Rules and Exceptions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  History?!? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Planeswalker cards 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  give those creatures haste for that turn. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summoning sickness / Haste / Comprehensive Rules 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Artifacts 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Nonbasic Land 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Keywords 

message: 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)
thread_title:  One thing missing; 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Only one source 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tagging for expansion needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ability cards 

message: 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. 
 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:   Thoughts on whether this is a reliable source? Even if it's self-published, it seems to meet , assuming that claim that , which I haven't tried to check, is true. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: @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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  August 2022