Khans of Tarkir (102/254) Last Updated 9/21/14

[Tejahn]

Thanks sumomole! I'll incorporate it right away.

@NeoAnderson and volrathxp: The above video is the proof of concept that the mechanic is working properly.

@fallenangle: Thanks for catching that. I forgot to include the 'MAY' clause initially but I've already addressed some issues with most cards including Jeskai Ascendancy. I'll upload the Mardu deck later on tonight.

[NeoAnderson]

@NeoAnderson and volrathxp: The above video is the proof of concept that the mechanic is working properly.

Probably i didn't explained well my thought...
You are casting Dead Drop paying 1 black mana and exiling 9 cards from your graveyard, normally this is the right way to do, But if you read the mechanics rules they says :

DelveThe Sultai (the black-green-blue clan) signature ability is delve, a returning ability from the Future Sight set.
Spells with delve are very powerful, but usually have a high mana cost. Fortunately, you don't need to pay all of it with mana. The Sultai's ruthlessness leads them to use every resource at their disposal, even the dead. As you're paying for the spell, you can exile cards from your graveyard. Each card you exile this way pays for . So, if you're casting Shambling Attendants, you can pay . You can also exile four cards from your graveyard and pay , which is a pretty good deal. If you have seven cards in your graveyard, you can exile them and get Shambling Attendants for only !

Delve can't pay for any colored mana in the spell's mana cost. Also, you can't exile more cards than the amount of colorless mana in the mana cost. So you couldn't exile more than seven cards while casting Shambling Attendants, even if for some reason you wanted to. If the spell with delve is countered, you don't get those cards back from exile, just as you don't get a refund on your mana.Article from Wizards

Now if you have in play 2 instances of Jet Medallion the colourless cost of Dead Drop is 7 instead of 9, so you could exile only 7 cards from your graveyard, same thing for the increasing if you have in play 2 instances of Lodestone Golem the colourless cost will 11 instead of 9. How do you think to retrieve the actual mana cost (already reduced or increased)???

[Tejahn]

When I started putting together the code I didn't really think about interactions. I'll go back to the drawing board and see if it's even possible within the limitations of the game engine to accomplish such an effect. On a side note, to address a few of your concerns, I did set it so that Delve can't be used to pay for any of the colored mana. Also, the number of cards exiled from your graveyard to pay the cost of the colorless mana is set so it can't be exceeded. I thought giving the option to do so would be pointless. But, as you pointed out, it's in the official rules that a person can choose to do that if they want. As far as the spell being countered, I didn't think to make it so rule-compliant because I was just conducting a test. I'll have a look at the article you provided later and redo the code to make it as official as possible. Thanks!

[NeoAnderson]

When I started putting together the code I didn't really think about interactions. I'll go back to the drawing board and see if it's even possible within the limitations of the game engine to accomplish such an effect. On a side note, to address a few of your concerns, I did set it so that Delve can't be used to pay for any of the colored mana. Also, the number of cards exiled from your graveyard to pay the cost of the colorless mana is set so it can't be exceeded. I thought giving the option to do so would be pointless. But, as you pointed out, it's in the official rules that a person can choose to do that if they want. As far as the spell being countered, I didn't think to make it so rule-compliant because I was just conducting a test. I'll have a look at the article you provided later and redo the code to make it as official as possible. Thanks!

I have pointed because it is not only to make the mechanic rules compliant but also because you could encounter some other problems, now i don't know how do you implemented the code, but if you exile the cards calculating the converted mana cost, you have a wrong advice that you are able to cast the card also if you can't.
I explain if you have an effect who increases the colourless cost, from 9 to 11.
You have 9 cards into graveyard and 1 black mana available, probably your code will let youc ast the card anyway also if you don't have enough mana to do it, or if you have more cards into graveyard don't let to exile them to cast the card, it depends how do you implemented the code.
Here you can read better explained official Delve rulings :

Sultai Keyword: DelveSultai is the black-green-blue clan. Its clan icon is a single dragon fang. Delve is a returning keyword that lets you exile cards from your graveyard to help pay for spells.
The official rules for delve are as follows:
702.65. Delve
702.65a Delve is a static ability that functions while the spell with delve is on the stack. "Delve" means "For each generic mana in this spell's total cost, you may exile a card from your graveyard rather than pay that mana." The delve ability isn't an additional or alternative cost and applies only after the total cost of the spell with delve is determined.
702.65b Multiple instances of delve on the same spell are redundant.
The rules for delve have changed slightly since it was last in an expansion. Previously, delve reduced the cost to cast a spell. Under the current rules, you exile cards from your graveyard at the same time you pay the spell's cost. Exiling a card this way is simply another way to pay that cost.
Delve doesn't change a spell's mana cost or converted mana cost. For example, Dead Drop's converted mana cost is 10 even if you exiled three cards to cast it.
You can't exile cards to pay for the colored mana requirements of a spell with delve.
You can't exile more cards than the generic mana requirement of a spell with delve. For example, you can't exile more than nine cards from your graveyard to cast Dead Drop
Because delve isn't an alternative cost, it can be used in conjunction with alternative costs.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/release-notes-2014-09-18

Particularly this words : "The delve ability isn't an additional or alternative cost and applies only after the total cost of the spell with delve is determined" means that you can decide to use delve only after cost reduction/increase are applied.

[Xander9009]

While that's true, I for one would rather have Delve and Conspire than not if the only reason for not having them is that the AI and I can tap/exile more cards than we should be able to. (I know Convoke has other issues.) The only way I can think of to come close to fixing that would be to scan the battlefield for all cards which can alter a spell's colorless mana cost and adjust accordingly. While that would be possible, it seems like more work than it's worth in my opinion. By that I just mean if it's already otherwise working.

Anyway, having said that, I sorted through all the cards I could find on Gatherer that reduced or increased the colorless cost of spells (except a couple that reduced costs for spells that targeted the card itself). There are 61 total, and a few of those affect multiple types of spells.

This should make things a bit easier if you decide to go this route.

[NeoAnderson]

While that's true, I for one would rather have Delve and Conspire than not if the only reason for not having them is that the AI and I can tap/exile more cards than we should be able to. (I know Convoke has other issues.) The only way I can think of to come close to fixing that would be to scan the battlefield for all cards which can alter a spell's colorless mana cost and adjust accordingly. While that would be possible, it seems like more work than it's worth in my opinion. By that I just mean if it's already otherwise working.

Anyway, having said that, I sorted through all the cards I could find on Gatherer that reduced or increased the colorless cost of spells (except a couple that reduced costs for spells that targeted the card itself). There are 61 total, and a few of those affect multiple types of spells.

This should make things a bit easier if you decide to go this route.

This is exactly the approach i would have to implement delve ability, i made something similar with morph, but there will be anyway a situation not considered, if one of these card lose its abilities.. you cannot check this condition, so in that case you still retrieve a wrong value.

[Tejahn]

Honestly, I was only going to be using Delve as a 'straight-forward' approach. So I didn't consider it's interactions with mana reduction and mana increasing cost. The other shenanigans you mentioned never crossed my mind because I didn't read the rules in their full context. I can post the code 'as is' in this thread if you would like to have a look at it.

[Tejahn]

Thanks Xander9009! I'll get a look at those as well.

[Xander9009]

This is exactly the approach i would have to implement delve ability, i made something similar with morph, but there will be anyway a situation not considered, if one of these card lose its abilities.. you cannot check this condition, so in that case you still retrieve a wrong value.

Yeah, I considered exactly that, but I figure while it IS a distinct possibility, it's not something I imagine happening often enough to worry about. If we could find a way to fix it, that would be great, but if not, I think it would be acceptable to play with that known limitation.

Although, this brings me to an interesting question, so I'll ask here where I've got both you and Tejahn who code a lot. Do you think it would be plausible to create an ability which has no effect on the card or its other abilities, but which could be checked for? If so, then for the community wad, at the very least, I could VERY easily add in a chunk of code which is automatically added to all permanents. That could allow the checking of those permanents for this sudo-ability. If the ability exists, then the permanent has its abilities active. If the check returns nothing (or preferably a different value), then its abilities have been removed. On the surface, just because it affects every card, it seems like it would be a lot of work, but if we had a working block of code, I could insert that with very little effort.

What I'm thinking is perhaps a static ability which sets an ObjectDC value for that card. Removing all abilities removes this static ability, which is a reliable way to know that at least not all abilities have been removed. The issue would be that for cards that DON'T have this block, it would always think it lost its abilities. Thoughts?

Thanks Xander9009! I'll get a look at those as well.

Ok. Just keep in mind if it says "[color] and [another color]", it means it actually originally said "[color] spells and [another color] spells". I removed the first "spells" to make it work with the function. It does NOT mean it needs to be both colors.

[Tejahn]

Yes Xander9009, I believe it's quiet possible. But as you mentioned, it will require a bit of work. I won't go into any specific details right now but I do think it's an excellent idea.

[NeoAnderson]

A way to do it is through an ability invisible token manager. This manager could grant the ability to each permanent that come onto battlefield, this static ability just continuos set a value to true. The second ability of the manager is to set to false these values whenever a spell or ability is played, so if the card still have the ability it will return to true immediately, otherwise it will remain false.

[RiiakShiNal]

Although, this brings me to an interesting question, so I'll ask here where I've got both you and Tejahn who code a lot. Do you think it would be plausible to create an ability which has no effect on the card or its other abilities, but which could be checked for? If so, then for the community wad, at the very least, I could VERY easily add in a chunk of code which is automatically added to all permanents. That could allow the checking of those permanents for this sudo-ability. If the ability exists, then the permanent has its abilities active. If the check returns nothing (or preferably a different value), then its abilities have been removed. On the surface, just because it affects every card, it seems like it would be a lot of work, but if we had a working block of code, I could insert that with very little effort.

What I'm thinking is perhaps a static ability which sets an ObjectDC value for that card. Removing all abilities removes this static ability, which is a reliable way to know that at least not all abilities have been removed. The issue would be that for cards that DON'T have this block, it would always think it lost its abilities. Thoughts?

Simply setting an ObjectDC value isn't enough because then you aren't clearing it so it would always be set (even when it has lost all it's abilities). This is one of the challenges I had to overcome for the custom characteristics mod (hence why it has a manager token that is always clearing the characteristics). So a STATIC_ABILITY setting the ObjectDC value combined with a manager token to clear the values would work, though that is a lot like recreating the wheel when you could just create a characteristic for "Active" (or "Abilities Active") Then it would just be a matter of setting them up with the STATIC_ABILITY to set the characteristic, the triggered abilities to create the manager (if not already created) and a LOL to define a value for the characteristic. The only hard work left would be the initial testing to make sure layers are right, the characteristic works as intended, etc.... If you wanted to add a custom manager to handle adding an ability to each card then all you would have to do extra is create the custom manager to add the ability and add it to the RSN_Characteristics_CreateManagers() call.

Or you could roll your own similar solution.

A way to do it is through an ability invisible token manager. This manager could grant the ability to each permanent that come onto battlefield, this static ability just continuos set a value to true. The second ability of the manager is to set to false these values whenever a spell or ability is played, so if the card still have the ability it will return to true immediately, otherwise it will remain false.

Again you need to double check with the layers and fully test the solution to make sure it works as intended. Just remember that you will need an invisible manager for each player and each manager token should just manage the cards that player controls (this is to make sure that interactions that allow for the swapping/stealing of cards to work properly even when one or more players leave the game in multiplayer).

[volrathxp]

@fallenangle: I've not yet uploaded to KTK Core because I'm still testing the cards. I can upload them in their current state if you like but they still need more testing.

@sumomole: Yes, the reptilians have the Naga subtype. I've uploaded the Sultai deck. Can you or someone provide me with a .LOL and .XML that I can fill in to make that Subtype show in game?

Also, can someone make the KTK charms? The Sultai Charm would have been so versatile in their deck above.

The charms will be in my mod, just fyi. I'm sorting out my issues with Ferocious before I post mine up.

[Xander9009]

...you could just create a characteristic for "Active" (or "Abilities Active") Then it would just be a matter of setting them up with the STATIC_ABILITY to set the characteristic, the triggered abilities to create the manager (if not already created) and a LOL to define a value for the characteristic. The only hard work left would be the initial testing to make sure layers are right, the characteristic works as intended, etc.... If you wanted to add a custom manager to handle adding an ability to each card then all you would have to do extra is create the custom manager to add the ability and add it to the RSN_Characteristics_CreateManagers() call.

If I understand you right, this would work essentially the same as any other characteristic using your CC functions.

• Add the custom manager to your function so it's created at the start of the game.
• That manager would add this 'Abilities Active' characteristic to each permanent controlled by its controller (and since each player has a manager, this covers all permanents)

And that's pretty much it, right? Just make sure the layers are working such that the characteristic is being being added, then the ability-removal effect is removing it? And in this case, just checking that a card has the characteristic would tell us if abilities are active or not?

Hopefully that's just rephrasing what you said, because that's my goal (if I can properly rephrase, I probably understand it haha).

[Tejahn]

Thanks volrathxp! I'll be sure to get you KTK DLC.