Dark Ascension spoiler season

[DeadSpeak]

Hey everyone,

Can someone point me in the direction of the code for the white curse in Dark Ascension?

I can't find it anywhere... I've even tried looking at the Wiki page.

I need it for my modern Erayo Steel deck...

- DeadSpeak

[friarsol]

http://svn.slightlymagic.net/websvn/fil ... ustion.txt

[DeadSpeak]

Thank you Sol!


- DeadSpeak

[friarsol]

According to this article (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/A ... 79a&page=1) Gatherer should be update tomorrow-ish. Hopefully magiccards.info and Arch's data files will be updated swiftly after that.

[jeffwadsworth]

Dungeon Geists | Open

Name:Dungeon Geists
ManaCost:2 U U
Types:Creature Spirit
Text:no text
PT:3/3
K:Flying
T:Mode$ ChangesZone | Origin$ Any | Destination$ Battlefield | ValidCard$ Card.Self | Execute$ TrigTap | TriggerDescription$ When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, tap target creature an opponent controls. That creature doesn't untap for as long as you control CARDNAME.
SVar:TrigTap:AB$ Tap | Cost$ 0 | ValidTgts$ Creature.YouDontCtrl | TgtPrompt$ Select target creature an opponent controls | RememberTargets$ True
S:Mode$ Continuous | Affected$ Creature.IsRemembered | AddHiddenKeyword$ HIDDEN This card doesn't untap during your next untap step. | CheckSVar$ X | SVarCompare$ EQ0
SVar:X:Count$Valid Card.Self+OwnerDoesntControl
SVar:RemAIDeck:True
SVar:Picture:http://www.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/dungeon_geists.jpg
End

Not sure if this is right. What is suppose to happen in this scenario? I cast Dungeon Geists and tap one of my opponents creatures. At the end of my turn, my opponent casts Act of Aggression to take control of Dungeon Geists. The opponent's tapped creature untaps. My opponent attacks with that creature thus tapping it again. I regain control of Dungeon Geists at the end of turn. Does the creature untap during its controller's next untap step or not? If not, the script may correct.

Looks like this would need a:

T:Mode$ LoseControl | ValidCard$ Card.Self | Execute$ TrigCleanup | TriggerZones$ Battlefield | Static$ True
SVar:TrigCleanup:DB$ Cleanup | ClearRemembered$ True

or some kind of Mode$ ConditionCheck trigger.

Very cool card, though.

[Sloth]

Looks like this would need a:

T:Mode$ LoseControl | ValidCard$ Card.Self | Execute$ TrigClearRemembered

That's a good idea. It should be static though (to not use the stack).

[Milod]

there is somehting wrong with spiteful shadows it generated error log and game hangs

[ArsenalNut]

there is somehting wrong with spiteful shadows it generated error log and game hangs

Works fine for me in my test. It's almost an exact copy of Binding Agony, the only thing changed is the source of damage.

It's really much more helpful if you include the error log and a description of the game state.

[ArsenalNut]

Do we have a definitive policy on new hard coded cards? I have the upkeep part of Curse of Misfortunes working as a hard coded upkeep method. I didn't know if I should check it in or not.

[jeffwadsworth]

Do we have a definitive policy on new hard coded cards? I have the upkeep part of Curse of Misfortunes working as a hard coded upkeep method. I didn't know if I should check it in or not.

I do not think there is any policy against it. You can always remove it if any issues arise.

[Sloth]

Do we have a definitive policy on new hard coded cards? I have the upkeep part of Curse of Misfortunes working as a hard coded upkeep method. I didn't know if I should check it in or not.

There's nothing wrong with hardcoded cards as long as they are compatible with everything else. Curse of Misfortunes is very close to being scriptable though.

[Milod]

immerwolf iseu here mirran crusader blocked it but immerwolf has shield vs all accept artifacts and creatures with same color as immerwolf intimidate :}

[ArsenalNut]

immerwolf iseu here mirran crusader blocked it but immerwolf has shield vs all accept artifacts and creatures with same color as immerwolf intimidate :}

Immerwolf was missing Intimidate keyword in script. Now fixed in SVN.

[ArsenalNut]

Do we have a definitive policy on new hard coded cards? I have the upkeep part of Curse of Misfortunes working as a hard coded upkeep method. I didn't know if I should check it in or not.

There's nothing wrong with hardcoded cards as long as they are compatible with everything else. Curse of Misfortunes is very close to being scriptable though.

I went ahead and checked in the hard coded version. I've been looking at what it would take to make it scriptable. Do you think the current Attach AF is really right for this situation?

There seem to be two categories attach situations
1) a card attaches itself to something
2) some card attaches some other card to some target

The current Attach AF handles case 1 but not case 2. For case 2, it seems like another flavor of attach might be in order. Something like:

AttachOther | ValidTgts$ <> | AttachValid$ <> | AttachOrigin$ <>

[slapshot5]

Dark Ascension is up on Gatherer.

-slapshot5