Collectible Card Game Headquarters

Max mtg wrote:The one thing that is unclear: Does "until the next time a player would receive priority" stand for the beginning of such a phase when priority can be given to players, or for the actual moment when a player receives priority?

The actual moment he receives priority, it would seem.

Max mtg wrote:That is: 2 players, each has God-Favored General. On untap triggers are remembered, but not placed into stack. During upkeep player1 (whose turn is now) places his triggers onto stack and then has to pass before the other player is allowed to add his tirggers. It that correct? Or the second player start arranging his triggers without waiting for his opponent one to pass?... or is it technically the same and makes no difference?

Player 1 has to pass before player 2 gets to arrange his triggers and put them on the stack.

Max mtg wrote:As for me, it looks easier to implement a solution when player's remembered triggers are be added to the stack at the moment he/she gains priority.

Lucky you

gos wrote:
As far as I can tell this means:
1) "At the beginning of your upkeep"-triggers go on the stack before triggers from the untap phase.
2) The active player gets the opportunity to cast spells and activate abilities before other players' untap phase-triggers even go on the stack.

I think both of these assumptions are wrong.

All untap and upkeep triggers go on the stack at the beginning of upkeep ordered by the controller in APNAP order, then the active player has priority.

@Sloth,
What does that 'lucky you' mean? (I just don't understand how to translate if from English for myself)

Speaking of upkeep triggers, may a player put them into stack in any order (say, have a werewolf transfrom after God-Favored General add 2 tokens)? Of they have to put into stack firstly triggers from untap phase and only then the ones from upkeep?

PS: I will not be able to implement anything until tomorrow anyway. So I'm not that lucky.

I re-reported this issue at the beginning of the spoiler season when it was announced untapped triggers were a thing. What Sloth said is exactly right. If a trigger would happen during a phase where no players would receive priority, those triggers are "held" until a player could receive priority.

This basically translates into: "All triggers that happen during the untap phase and all triggers that happen at beginning of upkeep need to be added to the stack at the time the upkeep ones normally do: at the beginning of the upkeep. Follow normal APNAP rules for ordering."

I had that portion of it working a few months back, but I ran into an issue where for some reason upkeep triggers were triggering twice. Somehow during the adding of triggers, the trigger was firing again somewhere in the stack trace, and thus being added twice. Between Hollowsage and the scripted Inspired cards, there should be enough untap triggers for you to see what's going on. Watch carefully and you'll see that the trigger goes off during the untap phase (trigger on the stack, input box says Untap). The whole paying mana part doesn't actually make a difference, if those cards trigger in the Upkeep without the normal Upkeep triggers being messed up. (I believe Blastoderm was the card I noticed causing me issues, but I'm sure there was probably others)

Max mtg wrote:What does that 'lucky you' mean? (I just don't understand how to translate if from English for myself)

It means that what I thought was the correct interpretation fitted with the implementation that looked easier to you

Sloth wrote:

gos wrote:
As far as I can tell this means:
1) "At the beginning of your upkeep"-triggers go on the stack before triggers from the untap phase.
2) The active player gets the opportunity to cast spells and activate abilities before other players' untap phase-triggers even go on the stack.

I think both of these assumptions are wrong.

All untap and upkeep triggers go on the stack at the beginning of upkeep ordered by the controller in APNAP order, then the active player has priority.

I agree. I misread the first time through.

sol, do not worry.
We can release another beta in a week with this issue fixed and that "you may pay 2{C}" cards properly scripted.

So, shall I take this task or anyone else wants to adjust the moments when "order simultaneous stack entries" is called?

Max mtg wrote:sol, do not worry.
We can release another beta in a week with this issue fixed and that "you may pay 2{C}" cards properly scripted.

So, shall I take this task or anyone else wants to adjust the moments when "order simultaneous stack entries" is called?

I wasn't particularly worried. Just stating a fact. Forge has had this bug for a while now, it's just much more prominent now that more cards have untapping triggers. You can give it a shot. Order simultaneous may get bypassed if there is only one trigger right now, (I can't remember how it's organized)

Ok, I've commited very simple and naive change to when players may arrange their abilities to be added to stack: r24585
Are there any bugs with this solution?

Max mtg wrote:Ok, I've commited very simple and naive change to when players may arrange their abilities to be added to stack: r24585
Are there any bugs with this solution?

Here's the first one I've found:

AI has Quest Landfall deck with Plated Geopede, Glazing Gradeheart and Sunspring Expedition. I cast Path of Exile on the Gradeheart. As it resolves, AI gets a land, but the two triggers (Geopede and Expedition) don't appear to be on the stack.

Edit: Same deck for AI. I just got a hang. AI played and sacrificed a Terramorphic Expanse. No triggers on the stack after the land was played (before it could be sacrificed). The Input panel claims that I have Priority, but pressing OK doesn't do anything. He has 5 Landfall cards in play. (None of which have targeting choices, so it shouldn't matter what they are).

Sol, please be more specific about that Landfall AI deck - I'm looking now at "Quest opponent decks" in constructed match lobby and have no clue at all which deck is that 'landfall' one.

yet, the problem seems to be relatively clear: phase should not end when players may have priority and there are unordered simultaneous stack entries.

Commited a changeset to fix that,...
yet I think of another alogrithm: when a player releases priority, stack is being checked - and if there are entries to arrange, he has to order them and then pass again?

Max mtg wrote:Sol, please be more specific about that Landfall AI deck - I'm looking now at "Quest opponent decks" in constructed match lobby and have no clue at all which deck is that 'landfall' one.

I was very clear about what cards were in play. What difference should it make which deck it was? I had to force close, so it's not like I had the name when I was posting.

Edit: That specific Landfall happens to be Aragorn. In Quest mode, they actually provide descriptions as opposed to constructed mode.

The one I reported didn't really have anything to do with the phase ending. A player shouldn't even gain priority if there are triggers that need to go on the stack. And no trigger should occur after a player passes priority.

Additionally, The Terramorphic Expanse + Landfall doesn't appear to be resolved. It was all in Main1.

Play a land (which should cause triggers to happen and be added to the stack)
Sacrifice that land (before the above triggers went on the stack)
Then the triggers finally go on the stack on top of the Land ability.

AI has two Landfall cards out (with Aragorn 1), plays and sacs the Expanse. But the triggers should be on the stack before he's able to Sacrifice it.

By the way, talking about triggers: if you trigger something during paying a mana cost for spell or ability (like Forbidden Orchard or City of Brass), the trigger should resolve before that spell or ability, not after, as it would go on stack only after it's on stack.

Marek14 wrote:By the way, talking about triggers: if you trigger something during paying a mana cost for spell or ability (like Forbidden Orchard or City of Brass), the trigger should resolve before that spell or ability, not after, as it would go on stack only after it's on stack.

Yea I had this working a year or so ago, and someone broke it, but I could never figure out how it got broken.