Bug reports

[hong yie]

after i read some reference about "Death's Shadow" rules,
i start to think that this card doesn't not need the "if" part. let it reach negative number, as Magic rule does allow it.
consider this condition:
- 1 Bad Moon in play, at 20 life, Death's Shadow arrive
- 1 Platinum Angel in play, at -2 life, Death's Shadow arrive
- 1 Phyrexian Unlife in play. at -2 life, Death's Shadow arrive

Another issue is, Death's Shadow keep its 13/13 while in hand to be used for card such as Cragganwick Cremator. i see in Magarena this power toughness keeps changing while in hand.

Things starts to getting complicated.

[melvin]

i can't continue to run any test with this version now. Thanx

Are you referring to version 1.51?

[melvin]

after i read some reference about "Death's Shadow" rules,
i start to think that this card doesn't not need the "if" part. let it reach negative number, as Magic rule does allow it.

Another issue is, Death's Shadow keep its 13/13 while in hand to be used for card such as Cragganwick Cremator. i see in Magarena this power toughness keeps changing while in hand.

Things starts to getting complicated.

Your right, we can simplify the groovy script.

The second issue is due to use of CDA, Death's Shadows's ability is not a characteristic defining ability. The easiest way to tell is that for cards whose pt is defined by a CDA, you'll see * in the pt box on the card, for example Tarmogoyf.

The correct groovy script is as follows:

Code: Select all

[
    new MagicStatic(MagicLayer.ModPT) {
        @Override
        public void modPowerToughness(final MagicPermanent source, final MagicPermanent permanent, final MagicPowerToughness pt) {
            final int amt = permanent.getController().getLife();
            pt.add(-amt, -amt);
        }
    }
]


[hong yie]

i can't continue to run any test with this version now. Thanx

Are you referring to version 1.51?

i'm playing version 1.52 from BuildHive, with new load deck menu. the validation check in this new menu seems to trigger the error, but doesn't explain which dec file cause it.

[Lodici]

i can't continue to run any test with this version now. Thanx

Are you referring to version 1.51?

i'm playing version 1.52 from BuildHive, with new load deck menu. the validation check in this new menu seems to trigger the error, but doesn't explain which dec file cause it.

Thanks for the feedback. I will look into it and publish an update asap.

EDIT: This is also related to issue 617 which I am currently working on.

[Lodici]

I have just published a fix that will display the deck name and it should not crash out either - it will just skip the invalid deck. Hopefully it will make it into the next 1.52 build.

This is very much a temporary fix since I am currently looking at how to make the handling of invalid decks less brittle so that, for example, you can view (although not play) a deck even if it contains invalid/missing cards -

[hong yie]

I have just published a fix that will display the deck name and it should not crash out either - it will just skip the invalid deck. Hopefully it will make it into the next 1.52 build.

This is very much a temporary fix since I am currently looking at how to make the handling of invalid decks less brittle so that, for example, you can view (although not play) a deck even if it contains invalid/missing cards -

screenshot.png

a very comprehensive solution,
as expected from Lodici.
Will continue testing...

[PalladiaMors]

I've downloaded the 1.52 version of Magarena so that I can play with some of the newly added cards and am really happy trying out again my sooper dooper Mirrodin Block Constructed Death Cloud deck. I've found out that when I have two Greater Harvesters in play Magarena allows me to sacrifice the same permanent to both Harvesters. Unless the rules have changed dramatically since the last time I've played, this shouldn't be possible. I think the deal is that the sacrifice is entering the stack and I'm pretty much certain that sacrifice costs should not enter the stack, the permanent is moved directly to the graveyard as part of the cost and you cannot even respond to it before it gets to the graveyard. Once there you've lost control of it and can't sac it again. Is this correct?

[melvin]

I've found out that when I have two Greater Harvesters in play Magarena allows me to sacrifice the same permanent to both Harvesters.

Good find! Thanks for playing the new build

The choice of creature to sacrifice should be made when the trigger resolves and not when it goes onto the stack, fixed in https://code.google.com/p/magarena/sour ... 040962ce10

[melvin]

Not a bug. A.I. still incapable of finding things when searching 99% of the time. The searching part seems to work but it never actually finds anything e.g. fetch lands stone forge mystic, pretty much any search at all.

Thanks for the report, finally got around to it as I was testing a new card that search lands from the library.

Made some fixes that solves this. The bug is caused by the non-cheating AI changing all the cards in the library to a special hidden card with no type as it is not suppose to know what is in the library. This causes search to fail as it cannot find any card of the specific type (land, artifact, etc).

Fixed by making sure we first reveal the cards in the library to the AI before it makes it choice, and hiding it later after the search is completed during the shuffle step.

[muppet]

Ok I grabbed 1.52 mainly to check out the searching which seems to be ok.
A.I. played a Moat I animated an Inkmoth Nexus but it could not attack will repost If I find other flyers can't attack too.

[ShawnieBoy]

Ok I grabbed 1.52 mainly to check out the searching which seems to be ok.
A.I. played a Moat I animated an Inkmoth Nexus but it could not attack will repost If I find other flyers can't attack too.

Looking at the code, I can't see anything obviously wrong, but able to duplicate not only with permanents that animate, but with non-flying creatures gaining flying.

Must be a layering issue. With the animation, it is creating a creature (which doesn't have flying yet as the ability flags haven't been set yet), it gets "can't attack" but doesn't lose it when it gains the flying ability flag.

edit: I'll submit a groovy for the Moat types for now - don't want to potentially mess up all 'lord' abilities. The ability can be viewed more as a conditional change: "If a creature doesn't have flying, it gains 'cannot attack'"

[ShawnieBoy]

Actually this is a bit more complicated than I thought...

Even with groovy, I can't get them to work as they should, even working at the game layer after abilities are applied.

Creatures that gain flying by whatever means, are still treated as if they do not have it.

[melvin]

Fixed in https://code.google.com/p/magarena/sour ... b4787ca28c
by moving Moat's ability to the correct layer (should be Game instead of Ability). I think we can code this as a general rule, ability containing "can't/cannot" should be at the game layer, I'll try to add this to the card script.

@ShawnieBoy: can you test the above fix, it seems to work for me.

[melvin]

Added LordGainCant, finally able to remove all the awkward 'have can't *' in the card scripts and now they also work at the correct layer. https://code.google.com/p/magarena/sour ... afe3d7ea61