Impossible Cards (tracking, discussing, etc.)

[Xander9009]

For the record, commander cards are working. You'll need to talk to migookman about them, but he took up where Blue Ghost left off, who took up where MC Brodie left off. It was a bit of a ride to get there, but I'm pretty sure he got it working. I think there was some lagging issue or something he hadn't ironed out, but it was otherwise working.

This means cards like Angelic Field Marshal are possible. I don't know the functions off the top of my head for referencing the commander, though.

I'll look into the rest.

EDIT: Found the thread: viewtopic.php?f=63&t=14420

EDIT2: In the OP, you've got "Angel of Jubiliation" instead of "Angel of Jubilation".

[Splinterverse]

For the record, commander cards are working. You'll need to talk to migookman about them, but he took up where Blue Ghost left off, who took up where MC Brodie left off. It was a bit of a ride to get there, but I'm pretty sure he got it working. I think there was some lagging issue or something he hadn't ironed out, but it was otherwise working.

This means cards like Angelic Field Marshal are possible. I don't know the functions off the top of my head for referencing the commander, though.

I'll look into the rest.

EDIT: Found the thread: viewtopic.php?f=63&t=14420

EDIT2: In the OP, you've got "Angel of Jubiliation" instead of "Angel of Jubilation".

Ok. I wondered about commander, because I thought I saw some in the .wad but wasn't certain. I need to figure out how people are playing commander in the mod so I can try it sometime.

I'll update the list with your updates and TheFireMind's either later today or on Friday. Thanks for all the input.

[migookman]

For commander I just made a fix that The Firemind suggested by removing a line of the code. After that, my initial testing worked great (100% success using 4 players) with the first 2 or 3 decks I tested but with more decks it gave the same errors. There was another discussion of people making decks and finding problems with interactions with other cards (tried searching for it but couldn't find it) such as some lands.

Edit: Just using Damia and Ghave without putting any other deck in your folder works well.

[Splinterverse]

thefiremind, I've updated the OP with the cards that require coding of other cards. I'll update the ones you marked impossible on Friday or this weekend. Thanks for going through the whole list so quickly!

Xander, I moved the commander ones out of the impossible list. I'll send you a new text file once I make all of thefiremind's changes.

[Xander9009]

• Break Open: it depends on the current morph/manifest approximation functions, I don't know.
• Cairn Wanderer, Cephalid Snitch, Escaped Shapeshifter: the difficult part is handling protection, so it would depend on Xander9009's filter handling functions. He should be the one to answer on these.
• Camouflage: I would have called this card "Wall of Text"... I'm not even sure if I understood correctly what it does, but I'd call it impossible.
• Chancellor of the Tangle, Channel: by using Riiak's mana functions they should be possible.
• Dragon Hunter: I'm not sure. You could give it reach and then make an exception for anything that is not a Dragon, but then what if he somehow gains the "complete" reach? The exception should be shut down.
• Emblazoned Golem: unless someone has a brilliant idea about how to approximate the restriction on the kicker cost, I'd call it impossible.
• False Dawn: I don't know if Riiak's mana functions could handle this.
• Firestorm Phoenix: you can't keep the card revealed. You could approximate the card by omitting that part of the effect, but would you be satisfied by that?
• Forethought Amulet: you could approximate this by preventing the damage that exceeds 2, but it wouldn't work with unpreventable damage.
• Illusionist's Gambit: I saw a remove from combat approximation in the CW, so I'd say it's possible to approximate this card.
• Imperiosaur: I don't know if Riiak's mana functions could handle this.
• Krark's Thumb: it would probably require to change the cards that flip coins so that they are aware of this one.

Break Open is possible, but there's a catch. There are currently two separate ways manifest is handled, and morph is handled in a third. For the newest iteration of Manifest (only currently used on a couple of cards, but will eventually be used on all of them), you'd call CW_Manifest_TurnFaceUp_Manager(oCard). Nothing else would need done.

For the older version of manifest, which was based on Neo's Morph code, you'd call these two.

Code: Select all

   RSN_Characteristics_Set( oCard, CW_CHARACTERISTIC_MANIFEST_TRIGGER, 1 )
   RSN_Characteristics_Set( oCard, CW_CHARACTERISTIC_FACEDOWN, 0 )
   MTG():ReevaluateContinuousEffects()

And for morph you'd call:

Code: Select all

   RSN_Characteristics_Set( Object(), NEO_CHARACTERISTIC_MORPH_TRIGGER, 1 )
   RSN_Characteristics_Set( Object(), CW_CHARACTERISTIC_FACEDOWN, 0 )
   MTG():ReevaluateContinuousEffects()

Cairn Wanderer, Cephalid Snitch, Escaped Shapeshifter: Yes, these would be possible once the protection functions are distributed. You'd have to check each card in your graveyard with CW_Protection_HasProtection(oCard). If it's true, then get the protection filter with CW_Protection_GetProtectionFilter_F(CardName), and then just call CW_Protection().

Camaflouge: It's really just a very long-winded way of saying creatures block randomly. You choose how many of your opponent's attackers will be blocked (by deciding how many piles to leave empty), and you dice how your blockers will group up, but not which creatures they'll block. It could probably be approximated once protection can be properly checked and Creature A blocks Creature B if able is working. (Which, yes, I'm getting the hint... I'll go distribute the code soon.)

Channel: I coded this. I don't know how I managed it, but I apparently never added it to the CW, and the code has since gone MIA. But it's definitely possible, and I can say that with certainty, because I already did it once lol.

Dragon Hunter: There aren't too many cards (~25) that can possibly grant reach to Dragon Hunter (about 15 others can grant reach, but only to themselves). So, it would only be a matter of taking those cards that can and adding an extra bit on a lower layer which disables the pseudo-reach exception.

Emblazoned Golem: Perhaps an ability in hand/graveyard/exile (like convoke and delve) which allows you to choose which kicker to grant, and the available options are limited to colored combinations you can actually afford? If you've got , , and mana available, it'll show options for , , , , , , . The chosen kicker cost is granted to the card, and when cast, you can still choose whether or not to pay it. That all I've got...

False Dawn: The mana functions themselves can't, but we could monitor for the mana tokens being created, and replace each created instance with a white mana token. Spending it as though it's mana of any color... that's another story.

Firestorm Phoenix: I personally would be satisfied with that, but only because I'm confident the purpose of keeping it revealed is to ensure all players are certain it hasn't been cast. Since the game can handle that, the onus isn't on us to ensure it's not cast, which is enough for me to not care about whether or not it remains revealed.

Forethought Amulet: Because of how it's worded, wouldn't a complete replacement work fine? In a pretrigger replacement, multiply the damage by 0, and then call TriggerObjectLKI():DealDamageTo(2, EffectController()). We'd have to check if it's supposed to be unpreventable, but there are less than 20 cards that deal unpreventable damage.

Illusionist's Gambit: I was warned that function might not be working right. I'll post back about it later.

Imperiosaur: Not without changing how the functions behave, which I think would probably require an additional RTA to process the created tokens.

----

To continue his work, I've got some time.

• Lethargy Trap: Quite possible. Nothing more than an alternate cost with an <AVAILABILITY> tag. See Archive Trap.
• Leyline of Singularity: Should be either possible or able to be approximated. If you can't add the legendary supertype, you should at least be able to implement a manual legendary rule. Note this approximation would require modifying 35 cards to consider everything legendary while this card's out.
• Liar's Pendulum: Possible. There are several methods of naming a card (mostly involving getting a listing of cards in the duel and letting the player choose one). It would probably be ugly, since it'd end up in all caps and in brackets when displayed. It would even be possible to use Neo's string building multiple choice questions to let you name any card, including a card name that doesn't exist.
• Lich: The only part of this that might seem questionable to me is the bit about not losing for having 0 or less life, but we've got a working PLAYER_CHARACTERISTIC_DOESNT_DIE_ON_ZERO_LIFE. This one's possible.
• Lightning Storm: I'm neither sure activated abilities could be made usable on the stack, nor that you could put charge counters on something on the stack, nor that you could put charge counters on a non-permanent. Unless TFM or someone else knows, this might just need tested.
• Lim-Dûl's Paladin: Should be possible. Just check for the step blockers declared, and if it's not blocked, grant it a characteristic to deal no combat damage and make it deal 4 damage.
• Magewright's Stone: Same issue as with Imprison. Only ways to manage this would be to have a master list of all valid targets or to modify every single card with such an ability. Not really feasible. I'd agree with thefiremind that it's impossible.
• Mana Maze: Pretty simple. Whenever a spell is cast, store its colors, and have a filter in a static ability iterate through all colors in the storage chest, adding spells of any of those colors. Grant each filtered card (in any zone) the can't be cast characteristic.
• Marble Priest: This is something which is as yet considered impossible, but eventually with the protection filters should become possible. Those abilities haven't been tested, though, so it's sort of a "wait and see" deal. (Note that while I've mentioned the protection issue, there's also the issue of special blocking restrictions, which will also need dealt with. But I'm planning to deal with those at the same time.)
• Master of Cruelties: Should be possible with a triggered CANT_ATTACK_TEST ability.
• Meddle: Along with Mirrorwing Dragon and similar cards, it'll be possible soon.
• Mindlock Orb: Already discussed this effect. Lots of cards would need modified.
• Mirror Gallery: I don't think this one's possible, per se, but if you can remove the legendary supertype, then you can probably approximate it by modifying cards that reference legends on the battlefield.
• Mizzium Meddler: Mirrorwing Dragon type issues.
• Mizzix's Mastery: Probably possible using Neo's approximation of overload. It's a tricky effect, but he got it working as a very decent approximation.
• Muck Drubb: Mirrorwing Dragon type issues.
• Muraganda Petroglyphs: I can't think of any way to handle this.
• Myr Welder: Impossible.
• Mystic Barrier: Probably possible. You can use GetNextPlayer(), but you can also take advantage of the fact that players should be seated in the same order they appear when calling MTG():GetNthPlayer(i). Each player would have their creatures prevented from attacking anyone other than the next person found using that function. Should definitely be tested to make sure, but should work fine.
• Nacatl War-Pride: Probably not entirely possible, but you can likely approximate it. I imagine it'll always have issues with cards that can't block alone, or if it's somehow given menace or something like that. Outside of those situations, just giving it "must be blocked" and "can't be blocked by more than one creature" would probably work correctly in most situations.
• Nix: Likely only able to be approximated. Keep track of what's untapped/in mana pools. When a spell is cast, if something became tapped/mana was removed from the mana pool, it had mana spent on it. This might have major issues I'm not noticing now.
• North Star: Basically a toned down version of Mycosynth Lattice. fallenangle recently worked on an approximation for this type of ability, and if it works, then this can be approximated.
• Obscuring Æther: Neo's morph code includes a check for cards that alter costs of face down permanents. So, this should be possible, but I'm not familiar enough with the code to really help much with it.
• Ogre Enforcer: Maybe able to be approximated. Give it indestructible, and make a triggered ability for taking damage, and increment a variable in a LinkedDC whose register is on the source of that damage, as well as whether or not it has deathtouch. In a state-based trigger, check each stored variable for either being >= to its toughness or for being >= 1 if it had deathtouch. If any return true, remove indestructible (not directly, though; since if it's granted indestructible another way, it shouldn't lose it this way; just set some variable to 1, and in the CA that grants indestructible, only do so if that variable is 0).

[thefiremind]

Nacatl War-Pride: Probably not entirely possible, but you can likely approximate it. I imagine it'll always have issues with cards that can't block alone, or if it's somehow given menace or something like that. Outside of those situations, just giving it "must be blocked" and "can't be blocked by more than one creature" would probably work correctly in most situations.

You had the same idea I just had, but I wanted to check what Gatherer says about it, and the real condition is less close than I thought to our possible approximation:

If it’s impossible for Nacatl War-Pride to be blocked by exactly one creature, then the defending player may block it with multiple creatures or may leave it unblocked.

Our "can't be blocked by more than one creature" is too strict because it misses the "if able" part, so our War-Pride would be blocked by 1 creature or not be blocked at all. Instead, if blocking it with exactly 1 creature is impossible for the defending player, they should be able to block it with any number of creatures if they wish to do so.
You're right in stating that it would still be fine in most situations, but I wanted to make sure we all know how it should really work.

[Splinterverse]

Muraganda Petroglyphs: I can't think of any way to handle this.

I think TFM's idea is that we would have to add a characteristic like HAS_NO_ABILITIES to all of the vanilla cards and then check for it on cards that remove or add abilities. That would be a monumental effort to be sure, and probably not worth it for a single card.

Thanks for all the detailed feedback. This is really good stuff.

[Splinterverse]

Is Panglacial Wurm possible?

I've tried it with an alternate cost and with an activated ability, but I think because we are technically in "choose" mode when we are searching we are prevented from clicking on something other than a card choice.

[thefiremind]

Is Panglacial Wurm possible?

I've tried it with an alternate cost and with an activated ability, but I think because we are technically in "choose" mode when we are searching we are prevented from clicking on something other than a card choice.

I think the best you could do is to approximate it so that if it's in your library, after you searched your library it asks you if you want to cast it from there. It's definitely not how it should work (according to Gatherer), but I fail to see important consequences of changing "while searching" with "after you searched".

[Splinterverse]

Is Panglacial Wurm possible?

I've tried it with an alternate cost and with an activated ability, but I think because we are technically in "choose" mode when we are searching we are prevented from clicking on something other than a card choice.

I think the best you could do is to approximate it so that if it's in your library, after you searched your library it asks you if you want to cast it from there. It's definitely not how it should work (according to Gatherer), but I fail to see important consequences of changing "while searching" with "after you searched".

I'm guessing that would involve INTERROGATE_SEARCHED_LIBRARY. Would I put it in a triggered ability with active_zone set to library or ?

[Splinterverse]

I've coded Karplusan Minotaur, but it appears that the triggers COIN_FLIP_WIN and COIN_FLIP_LOSE (or COIN_FLIP_LOSS), do not work. My guess is that we could do what we suggested for Saproling Infestation and cause COIN_FLIP_WIN to fire whenever there is a coin flip that "wins," but I don't think COIN_FLIP_LOSE or COIN_FLIP_LOSS actually exist.

Is it possible to add a trigger that doesn't exist in the core game? If not, this might need to be marked impossible. If it is possible to add the triggers, it probably belongs in the "requires updating many other cards" category.

[Splinterverse]

LoseGame() does not work. I've coded Forbidden Crypt with it and tried other cards that have it in the code and it doesn't cause a game loss. So, I may need to put cards that use it on the impossible list unless we can figure out another way around it.

[Xander9009]

LoseGame() does not work. I've coded Forbidden Crypt with it and tried other cards that have it in the code and it doesn't cause a game loss. So, I may need to put cards that use it on the impossible list unless we can figure out another way around it.

I've just tested Door to Nothingness, and it worked flawlessly. I also remember testing Demonic Pact, which worked.

I've coded Karplusan Minotaur, but it appears that the triggers COIN_FLIP_WIN and COIN_FLIP_LOSE (or COIN_FLIP_LOSS), do not work. My guess is that we could do what we suggested for Saproling Infestation and cause COIN_FLIP_WIN to fire whenever there is a coin flip that "wins," but I don't think COIN_FLIP_LOSE or COIN_FLIP_LOSS actually exist.

Is it possible to add a trigger that doesn't exist in the core game? If not, this might need to be marked impossible. If it is possible to add the triggers, it probably belongs in the "requires updating many other cards" category.

Neither COIN_FLIP_WIN nor COIN_FLIP_LOSE are trigger values. They're just constants. There are no triggers for flipping a coin. You'd need to create one (discussed in a moment). All trigger values listed on the constants page begin with "TRIGGER_".

We can create pseudo-triggers. Riiak pointed out a method which I used to create pseudo-triggers for "became renowned" and also for the new action from Kaladesh "crewed a vehicle", like on Speedway Fanatic. The process is to set up a few constants, use CW_FireTrigger(), and register the cards that should catch the trigger to look for PHENOMENON_ENCOUNTERED. We cannot make entirely new triggers, though, no. Only triggers built into the game will work. I tried defining a new trigger previous and it didn't work. Feel free to try again, because there's no guarantee I didn't just not quite get it how it needed to be to work.

I think the best you could do [for Panglacial Wurm] is to approximate it so that if it's in your library, after you searched your library it asks you if you want to cast it from there. It's definitely not how it should work (according to Gatherer), but I fail to see important consequences of changing "while searching" with "after you searched".

I'm guessing that would involve INTERROGATE_SEARCHED_LIBRARY. Would I put it in a triggered ability with active_zone set to library or ?

There are two ways you could do this.

1: A SEARCHED_LIBRARY trigger. Sadly, there is no trigger for searching the library, so you'd need to create one for it using the method I mentioned (which I can set up if you're up for distributing the code). Once there's a trigger for it, yes. Triggered ability with active zone set to the library. You won't need INTERROGATE_SEARCHED_LIBRARY in this case.

2: A STATE_BASED_EFFECTS trigger. Track how many times you've searched your library using INTERROGATE_SEARCHED_LIBRARY in a state-based effect triggered ability, comparing the current result to the stored result (in a PlayerDC register). Any time the result is higher than the stored value, increment the stored value and return true (from the TRIGGER block). Note that you could probably set the stored count to the current result, meaning if you search multiple times in a row, it won't ask multiple times in a row. Nothing comes to mind immediately that makes me think this would be a bad idea, but I make no promises.

In either case, yes, it would be a triggered ability with active zone set to the library.

[Splinterverse]

LoseGame() does not work. I've coded Forbidden Crypt with it and tried other cards that have it in the code and it doesn't cause a game loss. So, I may need to put cards that use it on the impossible list unless we can figure out another way around it.

I've just tested Door to Nothingness, and it worked flawlessly. I also remember testing Demonic Pact, which worked.

I've coded Karplusan Minotaur, but it appears that the triggers COIN_FLIP_WIN and COIN_FLIP_LOSE (or COIN_FLIP_LOSS), do not work. My guess is that we could do what we suggested for Saproling Infestation and cause COIN_FLIP_WIN to fire whenever there is a coin flip that "wins," but I don't think COIN_FLIP_LOSE or COIN_FLIP_LOSS actually exist.

Is it possible to add a trigger that doesn't exist in the core game? If not, this might need to be marked impossible. If it is possible to add the triggers, it probably belongs in the "requires updating many other cards" category.

Neither COIN_FLIP_WIN nor COIN_FLIP_LOSE are trigger values. They're just constants. There are no triggers for flipping a coin. You'd need to create one (discussed in a moment). All trigger values listed on the constants page begin with "TRIGGER_".

We can create pseudo-triggers. Riiak pointed out a method which I used to create pseudo-triggers for "became renowned" and also for the new action from Kaladesh "crewed a vehicle", like on Speedway Fanatic. The process is to set up a few constants, use CW_FireTrigger(), and register the cards that should catch the trigger to look for PHENOMENON_ENCOUNTERED. We cannot make entirely new triggers, though, no. Only triggers built into the game will work. I tried defining a new trigger previous and it didn't work. Feel free to try again, because there's no guarantee I didn't just not quite get it how it needed to be to work.

I think the best you could do [for Panglacial Wurm] is to approximate it so that if it's in your library, after you searched your library it asks you if you want to cast it from there. It's definitely not how it should work (according to Gatherer), but I fail to see important consequences of changing "while searching" with "after you searched".

I'm guessing that would involve INTERROGATE_SEARCHED_LIBRARY. Would I put it in a triggered ability with active_zone set to library or ?

There are two ways you could do this.

1: A SEARCHED_LIBRARY trigger. Sadly, there is no trigger for searching the library, so you'd need to create one for it using the method I mentioned (which I can set up if you're up for distributing the code). Once there's a trigger for it, yes. Triggered ability with active zone set to the library. You won't need INTERROGATE_SEARCHED_LIBRARY in this case.

2: A STATE_BASED_EFFECTS trigger. Track how many times you've searched your library using INTERROGATE_SEARCHED_LIBRARY in a state-based effect triggered ability, comparing the current result to the stored result (in a PlayerDC register). Any time the result is higher than the stored value, increment the stored value and return true (from the TRIGGER block). Note that you could probably set the stored count to the current result, meaning if you search multiple times in a row, it won't ask multiple times in a row. Nothing comes to mind immediately that makes me think this would be a bad idea, but I make no promises.

In either case, yes, it would be a triggered ability with active zone set to the library.

These things all sound good, but honestly I don't see myself doing anything on the constants front until I've gone through trying to code all of the missing cards and am caught up on new cards coming out. I can populate code as I go or in spurts (like I've been doing on the kicker code if you want).

On the LoseGame front, here's the code for Forbidden Crypt if you want to take a look: http://pastebin.com/L53Tf1Ub All other components of it are working properly. It's just the LoseGame part that is failing.

[Xander9009]

If an ability has targets, then all targets must be valid before the ability will go onto the stack, and at least one target must be valid when it resolves, or else the ability does nothing. So, in the case of not having any cards in your graveyard, the target portion of the first ability fails, and thus the RTA in which the LoseGame function is called never runs.

Since you're not actually targeting, it might work if you add not_targeted="1" to the target tag. Otherwise, it'll need replaced with a ChooseItem() function.