Talk: Mechanics

Sorting

Just wanted to offer a quick explanation as to why I chose the sorting method I did. It would also be possible and valid to sort these abilities by static/triggered/activated qualities, but I think that those qualities are already intuitively obvious. The distinction between keywords and ability words is harder to convey, and I think this sorting helps to explain that, and I think that education opportunity outweighs any initial confusion that may result from that organization. Separating evergreen keywords also supports that goal by chunking out transient, block-level mechanics. --Corveroth (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Your classification was very nice and polished. I liked it, but I decided to add also the static/triggered/activated qualities for more options. I think that in the next few years will be a lot more keywords and thus, more keywords will demand more options to achieve clarity. If someone doesn't like it, is free from reversing that version and I won't worry. --Tuamir (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this sorting is useful, but not in the navbox. Navboxes exist to help users explore related topics, and excessive categorization, perhaps untuitively, makes it harder to find things - you need to find the correct category and then the correct entry, rather than just finding the entry. There's also the issue of making the topic seem overwhelming, because now a cursory glance reveals not just variety, but additional classifications to be learned. (Not to mention that this iteration fills a majority of the screen on either of my monitors. That's a lot of screen real-estate!)

I think what we really need here is a proper Portal page for Rules topics, and the work you did to categorize these would help a lot in building one. I do want to revert this, but I'm going to park a copy of this on the Sandbox page for later reference.

With the exception of landhome, none of the entries in "commonly unkeyworded" are keywords or ability words. They really don't belong here, but they might belong in a somewhat similar navbox covering gameplay/metagame/slang or something in that range of topics. Similarly, while the "unreleased" group fits here, those pages are also prime candidates for inclusion in an R&D-centric category/navbox. --Corveroth (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Talking about categories. I think we shouldn't have the category Keyword and category Keyword/triggered on the same page. Logically speaking, the second is a subcategory of the other --Hunter (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Ante edits

Recently, an anonymous editor has been moving the link for ante up out of the "Obsolete" category. Both Yanderesliver and myself have reverted these edits. I believe the two of us are on the same page here: ante is "strictly forbidden" by the Tournament Rules, all cards with ante are banned in all formats, and the optional gameplay variant is subject to restriction by local laws, which overrule anything in any game document. That being said, ante is, technically, still in the rules, and in a compliant jurisdiction, players can still play unsanctioned games using it.

From the Comprehensive Rules (April 12, 2024—Outlaws of Thunder Junction)

• 407. Ante
  • 407.1. Earlier versions of the Magic rules included an ante rule as a way of playing “for keeps.” Playing Magic games for ante is now considered an optional variation on the game, and it’s allowed only where it’s not forbidden by law or by other rules. Playing for ante is strictly forbidden under the Magic: The Gathering Tournament Rules (WPN.Wizards.com/en/resources/rules-documents).
  • 407.2. When playing for ante, each player puts one random card from their deck into the ante zone after determining which player goes first but before players draw any cards. Cards in the ante zone may be examined by any player at any time. At the end of the game, the winner becomes the owner of all the cards in the ante zone.
  • 407.3. A few cards have the text “Remove [this card] from your deck before playing if you’re not playing for ante.” These are the only cards that can add or remove cards from the ante zone or change a card’s owner. When not playing for ante, players can’t include these cards in their decks or sideboards, and these cards can’t be brought into the game from outside the game.
  • 407.4. To ante an object is to put that object into the ante zone from whichever zone it’s currently in. The owner of an object is the only person who can ante that object.

Rather than start an edit war, or protect the page unnecessarily, I'd like to open a discussion on the topic. Editors of this wiki, including the anonymous editor responsible for these edits, where does ante belong in this navbox? --Corveroth (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Good question. Ante is the only 11 on the storm scale which goes to 10. They really really do not want to bring that back. I think the only reason they still have rules for it in the document is that the ante cards were printed in black border. All references to silver border rules were removed, because well they are silly. We also describe a few things as obsolete in the wiki, which are still on cards. (Even tournament legal cards like +2/+0 counter.) - Yandere Sliver 16:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Ante is "only" a 10, perhaps surprisingly. Bands with others is the only 11. I've been mulling over some other ideas for those last two categories, but none of them address the original question of whether ante belongs with the regular keywords, or with the entries that aren't actually part of the game. --Corveroth (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Storm is also a 10, hehe --Tuamir (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

We could put "Obsolete/Forbidden" instead of "Obsolete" --Tuamir (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Or "Obsolete/Retired", including Regenerate, Shroud, Fear and Fading --Hunter (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

But Ante is banned and Shroud and others not. This is a big the difference!! --Tuamir (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That is true, but it still has rules and is still usable in casual play. I think that was the anonymous editor's entire point. What do you think of a compromise that had it marked somehow, such as, within a "Retired" group, an entry like "Ante (banned)"? --Corveroth (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That "Retired group" is not needed for the Ante thing. You could already put "Ante (banned)" just now in the Obsolete group, and that should be fine. --Tuamir (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That's very close to changing nothing at all, which is a valid suggestion for handling the question of ante alone. However, I'm fond of Hunter's suggestion of including the other, more recent keywords which are similarly unlikely to see further printing. Since ante is the only "banned keyword", I don't think it deserves a completely separate grouping, nor should it have an exaggerated influence on the sorting of the dozens of other keywords. It is, very nearly, in the same class as landhome and substance and regenerate and fear, and I think that approximation should suffice for the sake of navigation. Navigation templates should not be burdened with extraneous information or hair-splitting categories, lest that meta information overwhelm the content. I am convinced that there should be a strong pressure to hold navboxes to as few categories as are reasonable. --Corveroth (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

How about "Retired", encompassing disused mechanics from ante to regenerate, and a "See also" group containing "list of unreleased mechanics", "list of slang keywords", and "list of Un-set mechanics"? Further thought: if we pursue something like this, mechanics should show up both in retired and their appropriate alphabetical listing above. --Corveroth (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I like it. I think this is a very good course of action. - Yandere Sliver 07:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't like to include the disused mechanics in any another group. That would be a duplication or, more concretely, a parallel classification. You now, you can classify things in many ways, but this navbox is just about the classification of the mechanics by the Rules point of view. If you want, you can create other navboxes classifying the mechanics in other ways, but I think we need to avoid to merge different classifications into one navbox, because that would be problematic. --Tuamir (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Another reason why I don't like a "Retired" group is that some mechanics like Fading and Shroud have a Storm Scale of 8 and 9, respectively, a bit less than "not officially retired" mechanics like Storm or Dredge. Thus, it's inconsistent. --Tuamir (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the proposed "See also" group is ok for me. --Tuamir (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't notice this message yesterday because it went up while I was writing my other response above. Perhaps the best compromise, then, is to abolish the Retired/Obsolete/etc category in favor of that more generic "See also", containing only list pages (or other articles of comparable scope)? The navbox should always contain all keywords currently in the CR, I think. So, the appropriate upper categories would have ante, but not bury or super haste. --Corveroth (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. --Tuamir (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

(reset) I went and made these edits. We now have pages for:

• List of obsolete terminology: Things that are wholly obsolete; the words and phrases that previously had meaning but are undefined in the current rules (e.g. summon, substance)
• List of deprecated mechanics: Things that Wizards technically could still print under the current rules, but probably won't (e.g. intimidate, ante)
• List of unreleased mechanics: Things that Wizards has talked about, but never actually made a mechanic of (e.g. triple strike, assemble)
• List of Un-set mechanics: Things that have only existed in silver border (e.g. ban, super-haste)

I also struck ante from this navbox, because despite what you might expect, it's technically not defined as a keyword action. It certainly acts like one, but the rules disagree. --Corveroth (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I really like that. A nice and clean solution. - Yandere Sliver 20:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice --Tuamir (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)