Collectible Card Game Headquarters

jerichopumpkin wrote:when opponent plays a card face down with morph, you can see what he is playing with mouseover on the stack

Thanks - created issue 707.

- i have 2 Platinum Angels, opponent have none. Attack opponent to -1 life, then we keep playing (not losing the game). this is maybe a glitch which triggered when we have more than 1 Platinum Angel?

- i haven't try it in firemind.ch, but could it possible to make the Ai to keep "Platinum Angel" from all harm, like avoid attacking / blocking ?
thanks.

hong yie wrote:- i have 2 Platinum Angels, opponent have none. Attack opponent to -1 life, then we keep playing (not losing the game). this is maybe a glitch which triggered when we have more than 1 Platinum Angel?

- i haven't try it in firemind.ch, but could it possible to make the Ai to keep "Platinum Angel" from all harm, like avoid attacking / blocking ?
thanks.

I've not been able to duplicate this, two angels, one angel, four angels...

Do you have a log of events leading up to you being on negative life as well?

i reach negative life, because i let the attacker hurt me, i want to protect my angels instead. the opponent reach negative life because i attack with 2 angels + assassin 4/4. i will try to send the game log next time. i still have this deck & plan to play more with this deck.

hong yie wrote:...i will try to send the game log next time. i still have this deck & plan to play more with this deck.

ShawnieBoy wrote:Do you have a log of events leading up to you being on negative life as well?

I think this is one of those common scenarios that would benefit from keeping the logs of the last N games played. At the moment a single "game.log" file is used and is overwritten each time you start a new game. new task raised

I've not been able to duplicate this, two angels, one angel, four angels...

Do you have a log of events leading up to you being on negative life as well?

i attach the game.log with this post.
this is as far as i play, since i lost passion to keep playing never-ending game with both players have negative life. and no way to stop the immortal effect.

Thanks for that - I think I've found the problem. It's not with the angels, it's with how the game determines someone losing.

You lose is your life is 0 or less, and your life is lower than your opponent

In the case above, your 'lose' event was overridden by your platinum angel. However your opponent didn't have life lower than yours, even though its life was less than zero. It's not seen as a loss so the game continues.

ShawnieBoy wrote:Thanks for that - I think I've found the problem. It's not with the angels, it's with how the game determines someone losing.

You lose is your life is 0 or less, and your life is lower than your opponent

In the case above, your 'lose' event was overridden by your platinum angel. However your opponent didn't have life lower than yours, even though its life was less than zero. It's not seen as a loss so the game continues.

thanx for the debug,
i was expecting i can play a bit of suicide while i have the angels. didn't expect this surprising rule exist in Magarena. i expect something will be fixed soon?

hong yie wrote:

ShawnieBoy wrote:Thanks for that - I think I've found the problem. It's not with the angels, it's with how the game determines someone losing.

You lose is your life is 0 or less, and your life is lower than your opponent

In the case above, your 'lose' event was overridden by your platinum angel. However your opponent didn't have life lower than yours, even though its life was less than zero. It's not seen as a loss so the game continues.

thanx for the debug,
i was expecting i can play a bit of suicide while i have the angels. didn't expect this surprising rule exist in Magarena. i expect something will be fixed soon?

I've hesitantly released changes to fix this bug, however it was mainly there for the determining of who lost when there was a potential draw. The 'who has the lowest life' clause was to see who 'lost the most', but didn't take into account 'can't lose'/'I win' cards.

In solving the everlasting game, a 'draw' would be awarded as a win to the AI (Player 2). This would have a knock-on effect with the Firemind queue worker as that is AI vs AI, so depending on which 'player' was playing which deck, there'd be a marginal potential advantage to the second player.

i saw a patch in Magarena source
https://code.google.com/p/magarena/sour ... 0c78f5ec7#

is this update addressing to the issue i had with Platinum Angels in suicide deck?

tried the newest version from buildhive, and found this:
i raised Progenitor Mimic from graveyard by casting exhume. then the mimic doesn't have chance to choose to copy a creature, back to graveyard. maybe need some fix a bit?

thanx.

hong yie wrote:i saw a patch in Magarena source
https://code.google.com/p/magarena/sour ... 0c78f5ec7#

is this update addressing to the issue i had with Platinum Angels in suicide deck?

tried the newest version from buildhive, and found this:
i raised Progenitor Mimic from graveyard by casting exhume. then the mimic doesn't have chance to choose to copy a creature, back to graveyard. maybe need some fix a bit?

thanx.

The checks against opponents values for losing the game due to life and poison have been removed, so should fix any bugs with 'can't lose' cards. In the event of a simultaneous loss (ie. a draw) the active player loses.

As for the above, it's a known 'bug' with most clone cards, they haven't been implemented as 'enter the battlefield' abilities. Cloning only occurs on casting Issue 444

Wizard Replica is missing flying

jerichopumpkin wrote:Wizard Replica is missing flying

Fix submitted - good find!

I've submitted Opalescence, and I've put togheter a mono white deck with Opalescence + Enchanted Evening, then playing it, I noticed that the order you play them matters:
if you play Enchanted Evening first, as Opalescence enters play, all lands become 0/0 creatures (as expected), but if you play them in the reverse order, that does not happens (even thought lands have become enchantments). As far as I know, the order which you play them should not matter

jerichopumpkin wrote:I've submitted Opalescence, and I've put togheter a mono white deck with Opalescence + Enchanted Evening, then playing it, I noticed that the order you play them matters:
if you play Enchanted Evening first, as Opalescence enters play, all lands become 0/0 creatures (as expected), but if you play them in the reverse order, that does not happens (even thought lands have become enchantments). As far as I know, the order which you play them should not matter

That would probably be due to Magarena not having the ability to spot dependency between layer effects (Brave man for submitting Opalescence - Humility + Opalescence will be causing the same problems) If a layer effect is dependant on another, they are applied last regardless of timestamp.

613.7. Within a layer or sublayer, determining which order effects are applied in is sometimes done using a dependency system. If a dependency exists, it will override the timestamp system.

613.7a An effect is said to “depend on” another if (a) it’s applied in the same layer (and, if applicable, sublayer) as the other effect (see rules 613.1 and 613.3); (b) applying the other would change the text or the existence of the first effect, what it applies to, or what it does to any of the things it applies to; and (c) neither effect is from a characteristic-defining ability or both effects are from characteristic-defining abilities. Otherwise, the effect is considered to be independent of the other effect.

613.7b An effect dependent on one or more other effects waits to apply until just after all of those effects have been applied. If multiple dependent effects would apply simultaneously in this way, they’re applied in timestamp order relative to each other. If several dependent effects form a dependency loop, then this rule is ignored and the effects in the dependency loop are applied in timestamp order.

613.7c After each effect is applied, the order of remaining effects is reevaluated and may change if an effect that has not yet been applied becomes dependent on or independent of one or more other effects that have not yet been applied.

As you can see it's a bit tricky...