devtrackers.gg
So do you think that the alternate cost abilities and the graveyard ability are even programmed in the game? They probably didn't bother, its just a 5/5 with extra flavor text
Yes, the abilities work. #wotc_staff
So do you think that the alternate cost abilities and the graveyard ability are even programmed in the game? They probably didn't bother, its just a 5/5 with extra flavor text
Yes, the abilities work. #wotc_staff
I'll try to investigate this today. #wotc_staff
Solved it. I'll try to make sure it gets in for the ELD release. I'm really shocked this hadn't been found before as far as I know! The underlying issue was pretty complicated this time :/ ... #wotc_staff
I'll try to investigate this today. #wotc_staff
If you run out of time, autoresponder takes over. Autoresponder has one goal: successfully get to the end of the turn. It will do what it considers the simplest possible decisions to get there, regardless of how good those decisions are.
For selecting targets, it will pick the lowest id(s) it's offered. In this game, you appear to be player 1, so it picked you instead of your opponent player 2.
As far as I'm aware we have no plans on making this process "smarter". The (relative) simplicity of the system has a lot of advantages. If you are regularly running out of time with this deck, can you link a video of it so we can see if there are opportunities to improve the timer rules to support its play patterns? #wotc_staff
There should be no dependency, though. If Frogify is there first, Alela does not have flying and so can't gain indestructible. If Sephara is there first, she gains indestructible and then loses it to Frogify. The outcome should be no flying, no indestructible either way. The only situation where you could have a dependency is when you have something that only takes away the conditional ability, like Sky Tether taking away flying. Then you probably should apply dependency rules to avoid getting a non-flying indestructible Alela.
There is a dependency, even if either ordering should result in the same outcome: Sephara does [flying -> indestructible], Frogify removes all abilities including flying without any requirement. Therefore, all else being equal, Frogify's effect should apply first because it affects the "input" of Sephara's effect without caring about its output.
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.
Frogify changes what Sephara applies to. #wotc_staff
Just curious, what does GRE patch mean?
Patch to the Game Rules Engine. Doing one of these currently involves taking down all of our match servers to update the engine, so we try to do it only at scheduled intervals. #wotc_staff
I also noted that [[Empyrean Eagle]] does not reduce the [[Alela]]'s cost. Is that related?
Did you mean [[Warden of Evos Isle]]?
Yaaay, I fixed it. As many in the comments here allude to, the problem was with dependency detection between "losing all abilities" and any effect that gives an ability if you have some ability (e.g. Sephara, or Kwende).
Because no dependency was detected, the effects assumed that the application of one of them would have no impact on which objects were affected by the other. So Sephara and Frogify both started thinking they applied to Alela, and after Frogify applied Sephara didn't recheck.
Detecting the dependency fixes the issue. Our next GRE patch is still a ways away, but this will be fixed in it. #wotc_staff
Thanks for the report, I see where the problem is ("exile until" effects specifically create return zone changes from the exile zone - since the Commander didn't end up there, the return effectively "fizzles"). We should have this fixed for the full rollout of Brawl. #wotc_staff
instead it creates a condition: return, THEN destroy
Does it?
How did you know that it was some kind of a condition?
In general, Magic is a game that works based on rules. You do get a free pass on this one because the rules are nowhere to be found in client. However,
101.3. Any part of an instruction that’s impossible to perform is ignored. (In many cases the card will specify consequences for this; if it doesn’t, there’s no effect.)
The parts of its effect that cannot be performed are simply ignored without any consequence to the spell's resolution.
To be fair, there are other card games out there where "then" does mean "if you do, then." I've always found that weird though. #wotc_staff
Not so much a bug as a design mistake; but I'll certainly take the blame for it. I'm fixing this for the next engine update.
In the interest of fast gameplay, Arena really doesn't want you to have priority during many steps and phases, including your own End Step. We added a special provision in the last update for your opponents flashing in permanents, but included logic to clear out the flag that could give you further priority whenever you took an action.
We expected players who wanted to perform multiple actions here would put a manual stop in the step or go into full control. Clearly that's not the case; we've gotten quite a few complaints here! So next time, we're only clearing the flag when players move on from the step/phase where the special stop was triggered. #wotc_staff
Axis of Mortality was the very first card I implemented for Arena! #wotc_staff
The patch with the priority update for off-phase permanents is coming tomorrow. One warning: if you want to perform multiple actions in response to something during a phase where MtG: Arena doesn't want to stop, you should either place a manual stop or enter full control before performing the first action. Currently we only pump the breaks once, although I think we'll be changing it to give you priority for the rest of the step in a future patch. #wotc_staff
Actually I hate to hit you with this as it's only mildly related and I don't have a pic but did you know if you only have two Loyal Pegasus on the field they can both attack as long as they both attack but they can't both block even if they both block. Which is intended?
Are you sure? I just tried on live with no issue: https://i.imgur.com/8XTnjYm.jpg #wotc_staff
Seems like we need /u/WotC_BenFinkel or someone from WotC to take a look at this.
Thanks for the ping. #wotc_staff
They had a griffin with pacifism and gauntlets of light attached and used god's willing to remove both auras. However, the gauntlet effect continued to be applied after the aura was removed. When it was unblocked, it displayed 3 power and dealt 3 damage. However, when I double blocked the griffin, it still displayed 3 power, but only dealt 1 damage.
As far as I can see (at least in our dev environments) it's only a visual bug for now. Are you sure the unblocked Griffin dealt 3 damage?
It's sadly too late to fix the visual bug for this next release, but I have a fix implemented. Thanks for the report. #wotc_staff
I think it would be great if you could implement a "are you sure you really want to target your opponent or his stuff" rider on all beneficial auras and spells.
I mean the reverse is already there for detrimental spells :)
My top comment in this thread explains why that's not feasible for auras. For most spells though, we already DO have this warning system in place. For example, if you accidentally start to Giant Growth your opponent's creature, you should be getting warned. #wotc_staff
The real issue is the lag that stuttering and even make this possible.
He clearly selected one card then it snapped to another.
How do you guys not see that as an issue?
Of course that's an issue. As a rules engine person, I don't have much insight into why that happened. However, I can answer why there is no warning dialog. #wotc_staff.
You'd think there would be an "are you sure" dialog. I can't zap myself with Sorin without clicking through a dialog.
The targeting semantics for Wolfkin Bond are simply "Enchant creature". We can't tell whether that's good or bad for the purposes of warnings - that's the same ability Pacifism has. #wotc_staff
[deleted]
It's been there all along - nothing about its logic has changed since closed beta. The messaging for it has improved on the client though. And there are a lot more decks in M20 that are running up against its complaint limits I guess. #wotc_staff