Talk:Magic: The Gathering rules

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Magic: The Gathering rules article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Magic: The Gathering articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] First section

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

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

Um, belay that. I somehow managed to miss both the Shivan Dragon and the Aladdin's Ring. --Ashenai 19:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Disrupting Scepter it is. While you're right that other cards later have activated abilities, I think that it won't hurt to have one in the section that actually discusses it.
I reverted your change to the tap section, since I think your wording confused the issue of tapping vs activating. In particular, a lot of new players run into the problem of "If I use Puppeteer to tap my opponent's elf, does he get a mana?" We want to be as unambiguous as possible in this regard. Otherwise I think you did a good job spotting a lot of mistakes I made. Oh, I also decapitalized instant throughout. My thinking is that "instant spell" is wordy enough; we don't need to make it a proper noun on top of that.
And thanks! --Khaim 19:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Yep, I saw your edits, and I agree with all of them. I sacrificed some rules precision to make things clearer, but I think your version is more "correct", and is no less clear. Cheers! --Ashenai 20:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First to play?

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

I can confirm that "a randomly selected player decides which player will take the first turn" is how it's done at tournaments, and in most casual two-player games that I've seen. --Ashenai (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
dionyziz, the method you describe is widespread among Magic players. However, the official rules are as stated in the article. Note that selecting cards from your deck is not random, since it favors people whose decks have higher-casting cost cards in them. --Khaim 14:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
You're right, I'm wrong. Searching for the specific rule, I found in the official rulebook that, when the game begins, you have to "Roll dice (or flip a coin) to see which player gets to choose who goes first. (...) If you’ve just played a game, the loser of that game decides who goes first." --dionyziz 15:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] Considering changes

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

Given that the comprehensive and technically accurate rules guide is 150 pages, I'd go with primer. Wikipedia doesn't need to know about continuous effect layering ;)
Note that some minor inaccuracies are there on purpose, for exactly this reason. There certainly shouldn't be any glaring problems, though. Which ones have you found? --Ashenai 08:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, after reading the AfD discussion and looking over the comments there, I realized that it was (mostly) accurate enough for its purpose; and that what I saw as "glaring inaccuracies" were really rather minor, but exagerrated by the amount of time I spend dealing with the rules. A few of the ones that stand out the most are: the total lack of mention of tokens or counters, the persistent ambiguity in the section on First Strike/Double Strike where it fails to mention the two combat damage steps, a lack of distinguishing the steps in the Beginning Phase or End phase, and the ambiguity of the Abilities section which implies repeatedly that the effect occurs "as soon as" the cost is paid or the ability triggers.
Nevertheless, with the realization that this is an encyclopedia entry rather than a "How-to-Play" guide, it seems to serve its purpose rather well. Perhaps it could use a link to the Beginners Rules along with the Comprehensive Rules, rather than clarifying those things here? Avedomni 19:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and the inclusion of Replacement Effects as a type of ability.
I'm not convinced that any of the things you mention should be added. For newbies, the "intuitive" understanding of replacement abilities (as a corollary of the Golden Rule) is sufficient. For normal play, there is no need to understand that the keywords "would" and "instead" denote a certain category of ability. --Ashenai 11:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
With regard to replacement effects, I meant that they probably shouldn't be listed in the ability section at all, given that they are just a special case of static abilities which are already listed; as you say, there is no need to include the details of how they work. With regard to the rest I agree; as I said above, the document appears to serve its purpose adequately. Avedomni 21:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Ashenai and Avedomni here--for an overview, we don't really need to get into the various sub-categories of the categories of abilities. An understanding of the Golden Rule should suffice. Section removed. GrifterMage 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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


[edit] Abilities

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

I disagree. These keywords are explained in the appendix of the Comprehensive Rules. There are a lot of them. Let's stick to the important keywords, the ones that have been in almost every set, rather than very specific ones that are no longer used, and were only in a single set or block. --Ashenai 15:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Ashenai; the abilities listed are the ones that appear in almost every set, and are thus the ones that are most important to explain. Anything more would be getting into block mechanics, and we don't want to do that. GrifterMage 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to reiterate this point. Old keyword abilities such as Banding and Rampage do not belong here. This page is long enough as it is. A good rule of thumb is that if it wasn't in the last core set, it probably doesn't belong here. Notice none of the block mechanics are listed here. --Khaim 19:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Flanking added, as it has been brought back in the current Timespiral expansion, and hence will probably be legal for roughly at least a year, and will also confuse enough people that they would probably appreciate it being present here.
Thanks! --Khaim 15:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

[edit] WP:NOT

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

Quoting directly from that page: "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes...". This article is not instructing you in how you should play the game, only explaining what the rules are. I and some of the other editors have very carefully maintained the page so that there is no guidance or suggestions, only facts about the rules of the game. For reference, note that articles for draw poker, rules of chess, and similar pages. The precedent seems clear to me: explaining the rules is okay, but suggesting strategies is not. --Khaim 21:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
And continues, "...This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." I can see your point, but I'm not exactly sold on the concept. Advice would fall under WP:NPOV, but this seems a separate policy. --NewtΨΦ 21:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
My point is that the listing of instruction manuals is not meant to say that nothing that could possibly be called an instruction manual should be on Wikipedia; rather, it is an example of something that almost always falls foul of the previous sentence. Also, I believe that this is, in fact, the same policy as WP:NPOV, but restated in a more specific context. Consider that there really is no way to write instructions that are not POV. --Khaim 18:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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)
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)

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)

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)

[edit] The Golden Rule

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

[edit] Rants

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

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

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

[edit] Summon Old Chestnut

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

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

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

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


A list of other inappropriate Wikipedia articles does not constitute a justification of this inappropriate article. As my son might say, "They did it, so why can't I?" :) Jack Garfield 23:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what. If you can get Rules of chess, Rules of Go, or a similar page deleted then I'll nominate this for deletion myself. Otherwise no. If you want to put it on AfD (again) then I'll find some longer arguments, but I really don't feel like hashing things out once more. --Khaim 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

[edit] Speed

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)

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)

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)


[edit] New Rules and Exceptions

  • 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)
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)
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)

[edit] History?!?

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)

[edit] Planeswalker cards

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)

[edit] Summoning sickness / Haste / Comprehensive Rules

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)

[edit] Nonbasic Land

  • 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)
    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)