Card Development Questions

[swordshine]

The Hive Mind and pacts combo does not work right now, I tried to convert pact by using Effects, something like:

Pact of the Titan | Open

Name:Pact of the Titan
ManaCost:0
Types:Instant
Colors:red
A:SP$ Token | Cost$ 0| TokenAmount$ 1 | TokenName$ Giant | TokenTypes$ Creature,Giant | TokenOwner$ You | TokenColors$ Red | TokenPower$ 4 | TokenToughness$ 4 | SubAbility$ DBDelTrig | SpellDescription$ Put a 4/4 red Giant creature token onto the battlefield. At the beginning of your next upkeep, pay 4 R. If you don't, you lose the game.
SVar:DBDelTrig:DB$ Effect | Triggers$ UpkeepTrig | SVars$ TrigLoseGame,RemoveEffect | Duration$ Permanent
SVar:UpkeepTrig:Mode$ Phase | Phase$ Upkeep | ValidPlayer$ You | Execute$ TrigLoseGame | TriggerZones$ Command | TriggerDescription$ At the beginning of your next upkeep, pay 4 R. If you don't, you lose the game.
SVar:TrigLoseGame:AB$ LosesGame | Cost$ 0 | UnlessCost$ 4 R | UnlessPayer$ You | Defined$ You | SubAbility$ RemoveEffect
SVar:RemoveEffect:DB$ ChangeZone | Origin$ Command | Destination$ Exile | Defined$ Self
SVar:RemAIDeck:True
SVar:Rarity:Rare
SVar:Picture:http://www.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/pact_of_the_titan.jpg
SetInfo:FUT|Rare|http://magiccards.info/scans/en/fut/103.jpg
Oracle:Pact of the Titan is red.\nPut a 4/4 red Giant creature token onto the battlefield.\nAt the beginning of your next upkeep, pay {R}. If you don't, you lose the game.

I've tested once, cast Pact of the Titan with Hive Mind on the battlefield, AI copied it and lost the game at his upkeep.
So shall I convert all the pacts or wait the bug fix of delayed trigger?

[friarsol]

I've tested once, cast Pact of the Titan with Hive Mind on the battlefield, AI copied it and lost the game at his upkeep.
So shall I convert all the pacts or wait the bug fix of delayed trigger?

Looks good to me. I think I prefer having Effects represent delayed triggers just in case you forget about them.

[Sloth]

I fixed some weird bugs in copySpellontoStack, which fixed the interaction of Hive Mind and the Pacts.

That said, i've just tested Intervention Pact and seems to have other problems with Hive Mind (it doesn't get copied at all).

[pufthemajicdragon]

Here's the script, just because. But what I think I'll do is download the source and see if I can fix it myself, probably by adding pets to the battlefield later.

OK so I know this goes back a while but I haven't had a chance to install any IDE and play with the source myself. But I have done a little looking at it on the SVN web interface.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we move the line putCardsOnBattlefield(player, psc.getCardsOnBattlefield(player)); from the newGame method and put it down at the bottom of the actuateGame method (in the GameNew class), that might solve my problem of having a planeswalker pet starting the game with no loyalty counters.

Please keep in mind I haven't been able to really look closely at anything, especially all of the references behind putCardsOnBattlefield. I'm actually assuming from context that that is the call to populate the battlefield with pets/starting cards.

Yes, no, maybe?

[friarsol]

Leaving this here for now:

Cycle of Life | Open

Name:Cycle of Life
ManaCost:1 G G
Types:Enchantment
A:AB$ Animate | Cost$ Return<1/CARDNAME> | ValidTgts$ Creature.ThisTurnCast | TgtPrompt$ Select target creature you cast this turn | Power$ 0 | Toughness$ 1 | RememberTargets$ True | UntilYourNextUpkeep$ True | SubAbility$ DelTrig | SpellDescription$ Target creature you cast this turn becomes 0/1 until your next upkeep. At the beginning of your next upkeep, put a +1/+1 counter on that creature.
SVar:DelTrig:DB$ DelayedTrigger | Mode$ Phase | Phase$ Upkeep | ValidPlayer$ You | Execute$ TrigAddCounter | TriggerDescription$ At the beginning of your next upkeep, put a +1/+1 counter on that creature.
SVar:TrigAddCounter:DB$ PutCounter | CounterType$ P1P1 | CounterNum$ 1 | Defined$ Remembered
SVar:RemAIDeck:True
SVar:Picture:http://www.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/cycle_of_life.jpg
Oracle:Return Cycle of Life to its owner's hand: Target creature you cast this turn becomes 0/1 until your next upkeep. At the beginning of your next upkeep, put a +1/+1 counter on that creature.
SetInfo:MIR Rare

[friarsol]

I'm not sure who added it, but while looking for something that might be appropriate for Balance I came across this in xCount

RememberedSize | Open

if (l[0].startsWith("RememberedSize")) {
return CardFactoryUtil.doXMath(c.getRemembered().size(), m, c);
}

This xCount choice is already covered, so I'll be getting rid of it. For whoever was using it in the recent past, please use:

SVar:RemCount:Remembered$Amount

not

SVar:RemCount:Count$RememberedSize.

If you need to do other calculations with the Remembered list, you can use the Remembered$ shortcut. It's very handy.

[swordshine]

I'm not sure who added it, but while looking for something that might be appropriate for Balance I came across this in xCount

RememberedSize | Open

if (l[0].startsWith("RememberedSize")) {
return CardFactoryUtil.doXMath(c.getRemembered().size(), m, c);
}

This xCount choice is already covered, so I'll be getting rid of it. For whoever was using it in the recent past, please use:

SVar:RemCount:Remembered$Amount

not

SVar:RemCount:Count$RememberedSize.

If you need to do other calculations with the Remembered list, you can use the Remembered$ shortcut. It's very handy.

IIRC, "Remembered$Amount" does not work when removed counters are remembered.
Edit: just checked, "Amount" is from objectXCount, obviously not compatible with remembered counters. I think this change should be reverted.

[moomarc]

As swordshine said, its meant to be used only for remembered counters. I think Remembered in calculateAmount passes a card list and that's where the issue comes in. It might have been changed at some point to pass a list of objects to objectXCount in which case it might work.

[friarsol]

IIRC, "Remembered$Amount" does not work when removed counters are remembered.
Edit: just checked, "Amount" is from objectXCount, obviously not compatible with remembered counters. I think this change should be reverted.

Hmm alright. The name is too similar for me. And it looks like it's doing the same thing that Remembered$Amount would do, hence the confusion.

[swordshine]

I'm considering to add cards widely used in constructed games, e.g. Chain of Vapor, Chain Lightning, basic script is:

Chain of Vapor | Open

Name:Chain of Vapor
ManaCost:U
Types:Instant
A:SP$ ChangeZone | Cost$ U | ValidTgts$ Permanent.nonLand | TgtPrompt$ Select target nonland permanent | Origin$ Battlefield | Destination$ Hand | SubAbility$ DBCopy | SpellDescription$ Return target nonland permanent to its owner's hand. Then that permanent's controller may sacrifice a land. If the player does, he or she may copy this spell and may choose a new target for that copy.
SVar:DBCopy:DB$ Play | Defined$ Self | Controller$ TargetedController | WithoutManaCost$ True | CopyCard$ True | UnlessPayer$ TargetedController | UnlessCost$ Sac<1/Land> | UnlessSwitched$ True
SVar:Picture:http://www.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/chain_of_vapor.jpg

The remaining issue is AI logic. AI will always pay the cost even when there is no legal target on the battlefield.

[swordshine]

Chain lightning:

Chain Lightning | Open

Name:Chain Lightning
ManaCost:R
Types:Sorcery
A:SP$ DealDamage | Cost$ R | ValidTgts$ Creature,Player | TgtPrompt$ Select target creature or player | NumDmg$ 3 | SubAbility$ DBCopy1 | SpellDescription$ CARDNAME deals 3 damage to target creature or player. Then that player or that creature's controller may pay R R. If the player does, he or she may copy this spell and may choose a new target for that copy.
SVar:DBCopy1:DB$ Play | Defined$ Self | Controller$ TargetedController | WithoutManaCost$ True | CopyCard$ True | UnlessPayer$ TargetedController | UnlessCost$ R R | UnlessSwitched$ True | ConditionDefined$ Targeted | ConditionPresent$ Creature | ConditionCompare$ GE1 | SubAbility$ DBCopy2
SVar:DBCopy2:DB$ Play | Defined$ Self | Controller$ Targeted | WithoutManaCost$ True | CopyCard$ True | UnlessPayer$ Targeted | UnlessCost$ R R | UnlessSwitched$ True | ConditionDefined$ Targeted | ConditionPresent$ Creature | ConditionCompare$ EQ0
SVar:Picture:http://www.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/chain_lightning.jpg

It works in 1.3.9, and in current version I encounter an input issue. When I targeted myself, the "pay mana cost: R R" did not show up, then I clicked the mana pool, it showed up but I couldn't click "Cancel" button to cancel it.

[friarsol]

Sloth,

How much work would it be to change Control changing cards like Control Magic to a Static Ability (either Continuous or its own, whichever would be more useful)? I remember someone on the forums saying that casting Steal Enchantment on a Control Magic didn't cause the creature to switch controllers as it should, and changing this ability to static would probably do that.

Obviously not as important as resolving issues before the next release, but it'd be nice to iron that out.

[Max mtg]

Chain lightning:

It works in 1.3.9, and in current version I encounter an input issue. When I targeted myself, the "pay mana cost: R R" did not show up, then I clicked the mana pool, it showed up but I couldn't click "Cancel" button to cancel it.

Guess after r20224 that reverts the method of switching input, the spell will become functional again.

My experiment with threads has failed... for now.

[Sloth]

Sloth,

How much work would it be to change Control changing cards like Control Magic to a Static Ability (either Continuous or its own, whichever would be more useful)? I remember someone on the forums saying that casting Steal Enchantment on a Control Magic didn't cause the creature to switch controllers as it should, and changing this ability to static would probably do that.

Obviously not as important as resolving issues before the next release, but it'd be nice to iron that out.

Yes, it is a good idea to convert these effects to Static Ability (i never liked the current implementation). I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will try to tackle it after the next beta.

[friarsol]

Yes, it is a good idea to convert these effects to Static Ability (i never liked the current implementation). I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will try to tackle it after the next beta.

No rush, just bringing it up because I was glancing at the Attach code for something else and it was bothering me as well.