[REL] DotP 2014 - Core Fixes Mod v2.01

[NEMESiS]

Here is one late entry; Grand Abolisher will prevent you from cycling cards on your opponents turn.

If Grand Abolisher is controlled by the opponent who's playing the current turn, then that's fine, cycling is an activated ability.

Unfortunately that is not how it should work:

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/ ... 0Abolisher

Grand Abolisher doesn't stop your opponents from activating abilities of artifact, creature, or enchantment cards in zones other than the battlefield (like cycling abilities, for example).

[thefiremind]

Then it's a problem, because it depends on how PLAYER_CHARACTERISTIC_CANT_ACTIVATE_ARTIFACT_CREATURE_ENCHANTMENT_ABILITIES is coded internally. It could be converted into a CHARACTERISTIC_CANT_USE_ACTIVATED_ABILITIES on each artifact, creature or enchantment controlled by the controller's opponents, but then it would prevent all players from using "Any player may activate this ability" abilities on affected permanents.

[RiiakShiNal]

Here is one late entry; Grand Abolisher will prevent you from cycling cards on your opponents turn.

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/ ... 0Abolisher

Grand Abolisher doesn't stop your opponents from activating abilities of artifact, creature, or enchantment cards in zones other than the battlefield (like cycling abilities, for example).

Then it's a problem, because it depends on how PLAYER_CHARACTERISTIC_CANT_ACTIVATE_ARTIFACT_CREATURE_ENCHANTMENT_ABILITIES is coded internally. It could be converted into a CHARACTERISTIC_CANT_USE_ACTIVATED_ABILITIES on each artifact, creature or enchantment controlled by the controller's opponents, but then it would prevent all players from using "Any player may activate this ability" abilities on affected permanents.

I'm hesitant to change Grand Abolisher in light of things since in some respects it would simply be exchanging one bug for another, though Cycling is more likely to be used than an ability that can be activated by any player (more cards have Cycling). Also that would make the card more complex (although not necessarily by much) and as such would increase the possibility of additional conflicts (that have not yet been foreseen).

[LinkFX]

Should this still be used or does the Community Wad include these fixes now?

[Xander9009]

CW includes this.

[erjerjerj]

The game manage the battle serially instead of simultaneously.
This cause wrong results many times, for example:

PC attacks with 1/1 human token and 1/1 unruly mob, I defend with two 1/2 creatures.
Expected results: 2 attackers die, 2 defenders survive.
Actual result: 1/1 human token die, the unruly mob got +1/+1 counter, the 1/2 died.

In this specific case the rules even says:
If Unruly Mob and another creature you control die simultaneously (perhaps because they were both attacking or blocking), Unruly Mob won’t be on the battlefield as its triggered ability resolves. It can’t be saved by the +1/+1 counter that would have been put on it.

This is a bug from my point of view - is there a way to fix this behavior?

Thanks,
Eran

[thefiremind]

PC attacks with 1/1 human token and 1/1 unruly mob, I defend with two 1/2 creatures.
Expected results: 2 attackers die, 2 defenders survive.
Actual result: 1/1 human token die, the unruly mob got +1/+1 counter, the 1/2 died.

I'm sorry for the dumb question, but I just want to be sure: did you check that the 1/2 blocking the human token didn't have first strike? Because if that was the case, then the result is correct.

[erjerjerj]

no first strike as I remember it. I saw this behavior of serial battle management in other cases too (like a creature which cause +1/+1 to another creature attack together, the battle was resolved like this:
the creature which give the +1/+1 died first, the second creature ceased to have +1/+1 before its damage step, no first strike in this case either as far as I remember)