Talk:Variant Magic: The Gathering formats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Ok, I put together this article, culled most of the stuff from the magic the gathering main article, but I figure this seperate page has more room for expansion. FrozenPurpleCube 22:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Momir Basic

Is a separate page for Momir Basic really necessary at this point? It could easily fit into a section here if more information on the subject is desired. FrozenPurpleCube 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is. But I do think we can scratch off the basic part, and revise the article to include all Momir formats, perhaps? Gardevior 21:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't oppose including any other momir formats that can be properly sourced. FrozenPurpleCube 22:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving this page

Ok, A Man in Black has expressed some concerns with this page. I disagree that game guide or notability is a problem, since there's nothing strategic here, just information on the variants that describe their fundamental nature, nor a real question of notability since these are spin-offs of Magic: Gathering. But that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. More sources would be nice, and so would more real world context. I'm sure there's more, but my real concern is understanding what specifically seems to be bothering A Man in Black. Can you specify your concerns? FrozenPurpleCube 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically that. All how-to-do-this and no real-world impact or non-primary sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing whatsoever that I would consider how-to-do this in the article. So, I don't understand your objection there. Could you quote some sentences and compare them to other articles that you think do it right? I'll look for more information on the variant tournaments though, to satisfy your other concerns. I do think that's important to include. And like I said, I don't agree with the original research tag, but I will say the references aren't adequate. So I'll change that. FrozenPurpleCube 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much all of "alternate deck construction," for example.
This kind of content isn't a problem when it's here as context for a game's place in history or other real-world impact (sourced to reliable sources independent of the subject), but right now this is completely lacking in references or even any claims of importance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm not seeing it as a how-to though. You are saying things it is missing. Fine, I can agree with that. You are right, those aren't there. It would be nice if they were. That doesn't make it a how-to. Really, I think the problem here is, you have objections, which have some merit, but you're just not describing them accurately.
I certainly agree with you that finding sources that describe who created the variants would be appropriate, and expand the article nicely though. For example, I just found that Rob Baranowski apparently created Peasant magic (found on both Pojo and Wizards.com). I'll add that in now. I don't know about the others, but I think descriptions would still be appropriate even if their sources are lacking. FrozenPurpleCube 05:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving this page

Based on the comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering#Variant Magic: The Gathering formats, I've made some changes to this page. Still need to add tribal to it. FrozenPurpleCube 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at this page and I found it useful - I learned about some variants I haven't heard about before - but I thought it could use some reorganizing and I added a few variants we have here that are quite popular. References coming soon. Darkelfpoet 17:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reverted your edits, not because I thought they were vandalism or anything, but because I'm concerned that you were a bit overbold in doing so. Not saying they were bad, but I'd rather talk about the changes before implementing them. This is particularly so because you added a number of variants without sources or references. Maybe if you shared some of your ideas for this page first? FrozenPurpleCube 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
My apologies - still getting used to making edits on here. Most of the changes I'd like to see are structural - I'm thinking we could structure the content a bit better - subdivide into "Deck Construction" (for the alternate deck construction), "Official Variants" (for those provided by WotC) and "Unofficial Variants" for the more common house-rules games perhaps (since the majority of variants are multiplayer). And instead of having the variants in one paragraph, perhaps give each its own minisection and provide some useful information (min/max number of players, average time length, etc). The only variants I'd really like to see added are Assassin and Hi-Life - Assassin has a wikibook on it, as well as a slight variation on the Assassin I play located here [1]. Hi-Life has one definition here [2]. If I can find a better site, I'll let you know (but the content on this one isn't bad). A few other things that perhaps should be added: 2HG is actually a specific version of Multi-Headed Giant (WotC may call it something else?) which can be played with any number of heads - I'm fairly certain that one is in the comprehensive rules but I don't have access to them at the moment. While I lack references, I have seen Vanguard used in a number of multiplayer variants, as well as a single player variant on Vanguard which uses random distribution of Vanguard cards. I have also seen Reject Rare Drafts use 46 or 47 cards and create prizes and Reject Uncommon drafts. Finally, there is also a Grand Melee variant described in the comprehensive rules. [3] (UPDATE: My apologies, there is no Multi-Headed Giant in the comprehensive rules, but the variant does exist. My apologies once again Darkelfpoet 15:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, there's nothing inherently wrong with your edits, and I agree, this page could use a structural rewrite. It just might be better to work with the page in a separate location for the editing so we can decide what we're going to do first. I do think that "Alternate Deck Construction" is a valid section, but I think that given that "Official" and "Unofficial" variants can apply to both alternate deck construction, multiplayer, and so-forth, it might be better to have those as the "main sections" with "ADC", "Multiplayer" and anything else as subsections in both. Or maybe have those as the sections with the official and unofficial in both? I dunno. 2HG could reasonably state something like "This variant can also be applied to more players, on MTGO it's limited to three on each team, but in real life, the numbers can be higher" .
In terms of sources, I'm not sure just using Beebleboy's page is sufficient to establish a variant as notable. As a page on a free web host, it probably isn't a reliable source. Same with having a wikibook. A better source would be coverage on Wizards.com or a magazine or even a magic website that has regular content like Starcity or salvation. Or if there was a tournament held for the variant at a major convention. FrozenPurpleCube 16:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Are there official (WotC) alternate deck constructions? I can't think of one off the top of my head - unless Vanguard qualifies. So we have ADC, Multiplayer and Two-Player (Vanguard is officially a two-player variant) as well as Official versus Unofficial. I like the idea of using subsections for each, but it seems kindof... cluttered in my mind. Maybe we could drop the unofficial/official headings and just mention it in the paragraph whether or not it is sanctioned/official/unofficial. I was thinking about a brief outline of each variant at the start of each subsection, something like....

Legality: [Official | Sanctioned | Unofficial]

Players: 4-7

Minimum Deck Size: 60 (for ADC)

Maximum Deck Size: 90 (for ADC)


The closest thing I can find to Assassin is Vendetta (which adds a bit to the rules) [4]. I'll look on MTGSalvation tonight. Darkelfpoet 18:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, "official" in the sense that they're supported in the online game, or in the comprehensive rules for tournament play. Vanguard is probably the easiest variant to say that it's "official" since it was supported by official products. It might work to include a description in those cases where a variant exists in both official and unofficial forms. FrozenPurpleCube 19:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So, would you like me to gin up a demo page of the structure (on one of my user pages say?) and we can tweak it to be perfect? Darkelfpoet 19:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Works for me, let me know when you get something together. FrozenPurpleCube 03:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Darkelfpoet/Variant_MTG_Formats_Demo - doesn't have all the content on it (or the references which I'll get around to ASAP) but shows how I'm thinking of setting it up. In case I haven't added them by the time you get around to reading it, under Legality, I was going to include DCI/WotC; Magic:Online; (other major organizations such as GenCon? and the 5CRC) Darkelfpoet 19:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
K, I'll give you some thoughts on the talk page there. FrozenPurpleCube 20:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tribal Wars

I feel that Tribal Wars should be mentioned on this as well. There's a decent following for this format online. DbishopNWF 17:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(we're working on a new version of the page, it'll have Tribal Wars on it) Darkelfpoet 19:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)