Card Development Questions

[Max mtg]

PreventDamage needs to be refactored into an effect with defined$ targets... moreover we should somehow be able to distibute prevention from simultaneous effects

Say, one has 2 Grizzly Bears, opponent casts Pyroclasm, in response Shining Shoal (X=2) and choose to prevent 1 damage on each

[moomarc]

Deciding which creature damage is prevented from should only occur when the damage would be prevented though, not when you cast Shining Shoal. Would be great if we could get that working though because it shouldn't be too difficult to get from there to proper redirection shields

[Max mtg]

Deciding which creature damage is prevented from should only occur when the damage would be prevented though, not when you cast Shining Shoal. Would be great if we could get that working though because it shouldn't be too difficult to get from there to proper redirection shields

I've learned how it works. As damaging effect resolves the prevention effects apply - and this fact gives a hint, that at some point of time all damage to be applied by a Pyroclasm should be held in a buffer, when player who contols any prevention effects decides how to apply the latter. After that the damage is to be released and distributed among those to who it has been addressed.

It's unlike current system when damage is just applied in a loop, see forge.card.ability.effects.DamageAllEffect.resolve(SpellAbility) for an example.

[swordshine]

Power Conduit has a "Remove a counter" cost, which is very different from the existing "RemoveCounter" cost. Maybe we need write a new cost "RemoveAnyCounter<Num/Type/{TypeDescription}>"

[friarsol]

:arrow: Power Conduit has a "Remove a counter" cost, which is very different from the existing "RemoveCounter" cost. Maybe we need write a new cost "RemoveAnyCounter<Num/Type/{TypeDescription}>"

That'll probably work fine. I think originally for this case I was picturing the CounterType to be listed as "Any" (Or maybe "Counter" so it looked similar to how hasProperty works). Which would set CounterType to null here, and then force the player to choose a valid Counter on a card during cost payment. But it may be easier to just create a new cost for this scenario so the current one doesn't bloat up.

[swordshine]

:arrow: Power Conduit has a "Remove a counter" cost, which is very different from the existing "RemoveCounter" cost. Maybe we need write a new cost "RemoveAnyCounter<Num/Type/{TypeDescription}>"

That'll probably work fine. I think originally for this case I was picturing the CounterType to be listed as "Any" (Or maybe "Counter" so it looked similar to how hasProperty works). Which would set CounterType to null here, and then force the player to choose a valid Counter on a card during cost payment. But it may be easier to just create a new cost for this scenario so the current one doesn't bloat up.

I made AI only remove negative counters, maybe this's not good for Chisei, Heart of Oceans.

[swordshine]

I'm interested in Krark's Thumb. If I have three Krark's Thumb in play (when Mirror Gallery is in play), I can choose one of the eight results and ignore the others. Am I right?

[Sloth]

I'm interested in Krark's Thumb. If I have three Krark's Thumb in play (when Mirror Gallery is in play), I can choose one of the eight results and ignore the others. Am I right?

Yes (since the order of flipping doesn't matter).

[swordshine]

I looked into the code for Archive Trap in ChangeZone effect. Current code cannot work with Bribery and the activating player is not always the one who searched the library.

Code: Select all

        if(origin.contains(ZoneType.Library) && !sa.hasParam("NoLooking")) {
            sa.getActivatingPlayer().incLibrarySearched();
        }


I'll modify it after the new "Can't search library" mechanism sets up.

[Max mtg]

Just added keywords to restrict a custom number of blockers.
Already implemented Pathrazer of Ulamog and Gorilla Berserkers.

Could not add Guile and Phyrexian Colossus because their scripts are more complex. Please check if they are scriptable now.

[friarsol]

Just added keywords to restrict a custom number of blockers.
Already implemented Pathrazer of Ulamog and Gorilla Berserkers.

Sloth, is there enough AI in there now for these cards to be scripted? I know the reason they weren't added before wasn't due to the complexity of the script, but the complexity of the AI needed to support them.

[Max mtg]

Never heard of poor AI support being a reason not to implement a card.

[friarsol]

Never heard of poor AI support being a reason not to implement a card.

Not very many cards are affected by it. I'm not talking about the AI not being able to play the card. I'm talking about the AI illegally playing against this card.

[swordshine]

Never heard of poor AI support being a reason not to implement a card.

Not very many cards are affected by it. I'm not talking about the AI not being able to play the card. I'm talking about the AI illegally playing against this card.

I confirm AI cannot make good decisions when I attack with cards like Phyrexian Colossus. I set AI's life to 8, gave ai three creatures, but ai didn't block.

[swordshine]

Just added keywords to restrict a custom number of blockers.
Already implemented Pathrazer of Ulamog and Gorilla Berserkers.

Could not add Guile and Phyrexian Colossus because their scripts are more complex. Please check if they are scriptable now.

Added both Guile and Phyrexian Colossus. We need some improvements of attacking/blocking ai.