Possibly, opponent cast mirrormade and not a real binding and OP missed this fact
Nope, this is solved as a mirrormade bug, opponent's were real ones.
This looks like T5 with the opponent on the play. Had anyone missed land drops? How did the opponent pay for Binding?
#wotcstaff
plz stop the office is on fire
The party size calculation is surprisingly complex to do efficiently- we joked about it being a potential interview problem for new engineers. I wonder if any redditors can figure it out?
#wotcstaff
Y'all are awesome!
Of the two solutions I could grok and passed my test cases:
/u/ApolloFireweaver - yours is pretty close to /u/WotC_BenFinkel's initial sketch! By my reckoning, this could work in O(n) time if you're very conscious about your data structures. Since you're doing so much data manipulation, choosing the wrong structure could really cost you.
/u/archy_7 - yours was the closest to what we're actually doing, assuming your re...
Read moreThe only potential issue with this psuedo-code approach is making sure that multi-type items only count for one time when there aren't any duplicates.
ex. You have a Human Warrior, a Elf Thief Cleric, and an Orc Wizard - Your count should be three.
I'm not quite sure I follow the idea above, but a good test case is:
Edit: introduced a fourth creature and type to be more clear.
#wotcstaff
You just have them on the battlefield. The set is likely going to be geared towards class types and creatures having multiple. For instance this card would trigger twice off a potential ‘human cleric wizard’ creature card on the battlefield.
EDIT: After reading some other threads it seems each creature can only be used for up to one creature type in the party. So a human wizard cleric could count for your wizard OR cleric designation but not both.
You just have them on the battlefield.
Yep. #wotcstaff
The party size calculation is surprisingly complex to do efficiently- we joked about it being a potential interview problem for new engineers. I wonder if any redditors can figure it out?
#wotcstaff
The game will mana screw or mana flood you based on the moon cycle IRL.
Is THAT what cycling.cpp does??
#wotcstaff
I called my mom to tell her about this.
#wotcstaff
Maybe, "Escape - BB, Sacrifice two creatures."
Curious -- was there any consideration of basically doing a reprint that might update the phrasing in such a way that the rules engine would understand it?
ie, could Scourge of Nel-Toth simply read "Escape: BB, Sacrifice 2 creatures"?
I'm asking from a mostly curiosity standpoint, I'm not arguing that it should, even if the exact same effects were available with differently wording the cards.
Just wanting a little insight into what sorts of things go on :-)
ie, could Scourge of Nel-Toth simply read "Escape: BB, Sacrifice 2 creatures"?
This would mean that the creature had escaped when it enters the battlefield. It's easy to imagine that's unimportant, however:
While this interaction can't happen in Arena, that doesn't mean that it never will, and software is already complicated enough without having little landmines strewn throughout. So, to that end, we value rules accuracy above almost all else. We can, and do, make small changes to text behind the scenes, but we require that these are semantically identical. In this case, I don't know that there was a semantically identical way to phrase this that would work.
i'm out of my element here but why can't you reword the card on mtga to fit into the capabilities the system already can do? the wording doesn't have to be exactly the same as the card version if it functionally does the exact same thing.
What would you word it to?
So Arena actually reads the literal card text, rather than you translating the card text into a machine-friendly set of rules? That's super interesting, any chance you could shed some light (or have written elsewhere) on what made you decide to do it that way?
So Arena actually reads the literal card text, rather than you translating the card text into a machine-friendly set of rules?
If by "you translating", you mean directly coding cards, this is correct.
That's super interesting, any chance you could shed some light (or have written elsewhere) on what made you decide to do it that way?
With 15 years of development on card games, it's not too hard to imagine in incremental improvements-
You get tired of doing boring work, so you move up to
And that handles things like "Deal 1 damage to any target" or "Deal 2 damage to any target" just fine, but it doesn't handle stuff like "Deal X damage to any target, where X is the amount of damage dealt...
Read moreSent :)
All the cards with the "by paying" template look pretty close to the same functionality as Escape to me...
It's funny you mention this, because Underworld Breach hit our team like a bus, impacting everything from designing how we order action costs, to new tech in card representation on the client (turns out that we had never granted an ability with a variable cost before). We had never attached an ability from one card to another card based on qualities of that card!
Nevertheless, it's always about how complex the english is, not how complex the ideal implementation or backing rules are. "Escape {r}" is WAY simpler than Scourge's text. For escape, we literally just wrote code that explains what it means. For Scourge, we have to translate the english.
With only 3 cards in all of magic that have this type of phrasing, not including Scourge makes sense.
But what about Demonic Embrace from M21? It is the newest of the 3 and will be in Arena anyway.
I assume parallel work flow teams, or they are actually different, even with the similar wording. Embrace not negating the casting cost and having no mana symbols in text?
But what about Demonic Embrace from M21? It is the newest of the 3 and will be in Arena anyway.
It's actually the gerund form of those verbs that presents the problem! 'Paying' and 'Discarding' work because we dedicated a fair amount of our time for M21 to them, but other '-ing' costs still need to be implemented.
More of a rules question, but what's the functional difference between phrasing it as that rather than as an activated ability? (Ex: BB, Sacrifice two creatures: You may cast ~ from your graveyard)
You may cast Scourge of Nel Toth from your graveyard by paying BlackBlack and sacrificing two creatures rather than paying its mana cost.
This allows you to cast it just like it's in your hand. You have that option available as long as you qualify.
BB, Sacrifice two creatures: You may cast ~ from your graveyard
This is an activated ability that you'd have to activate, pay the costs for, then during resolution of that ability, cast ~ for it's normal costs. You'd have to reactivate the ability if you changed your mind and wanted to cast it later. You could also pay the BB, Sac even if your opponent had something like Drannith Magistrate on the board.
So, they're actually quite different abilities.
Implementation cost. People need to remember that the GRE works by reading the card then interpreting what it does (Which makes sense since it promotes reusability).
This is correct. Time to Feed was skipped for tech cost reasons (due to the delayed trigger either being new or being embedded in resolution steps IIRC).
It just comes down to maximizing playing experience in the time we have. If we swap Time to Feed with a similar card, the overall experience isn't changed much, and we get to spend that time on the flagship cards that you really want.
#wotcstaff
I doubt it implementation cost since [[Torgaar, Famine Incarnate]] plus any of the cards that allow casting from graveyard(like, limited myself to the same set, [[Muldrotha, the Gravetide]]) is basically Scourge, just with a slider.
Don't assume that implementation issues arise from the game effect in question (in this case, the cast permission)! Scourge was indeed skipped due to tech cost, and I'll give you a hint:
All the cards in historic that use the template "by paying".
#wotcstaff
Man I was ready to send a congratulations present #wotcstaff
I am vindicated. #wotc_staff
devtrackers.gg