Turn Against - Question on Functionality

orgazmo

OK... So if you use " Turn Against" on a card that says "Give +X / + X when this creature enters the battlefield" why does that effect not trigger when it moves to your side, but then triggers when it is returned to the opponents side? Is that a bug? Is that just "functioning as designed?"

Ie... You steal a " Decimator of the Provinces" and its 12/12, then when it returns to the original owner, it not only buffs itself again, but it also triggers a Mirrorpool support so it becomes 28/28 or some other nonsense. Is that correct? It just doesn't seem right.

Mainloop25

Yeah, i would be willing to pay a higher mana cost to make effects not trigger again on returning to their side. Most of the time you are helping them by letting your opponent re-trigger on-entry effects.

wereotter

I think I remember it being a result of something they had to do with coding to denote possession of the creature. You'll also notice that if you use Exert Influence or a similar effect that ETB triggers happen on your side when you steal it.

Honestly it'd be nice if it just worked correctly and didn't trigger in either instance.

octal9

wereotter wrote:

I think I remember it being a result of something they had to do with coding to denote possession of the creature.

This is correct. On return, it's entering the owner's battlefield, therefore the EtB effects trigger. For exert, the possession changes & then the creature enters your battlefield, triggering EtB.

orgazmo

octal9 wrote:

wereotter wrote:

I think I remember it being a result of something they had to do with coding to denote possession of the creature.

This is correct. On return, it's entering the owner's battlefield, therefore the EtB effects trigger. For exert, the possession changes & then the creature enters your battlefield, triggering EtB.

The problem here is the card says "enters the battlefield" not "enters your battlefield"

Also, logically speaking, if you use Turn Against, and it DOESNT trigger when it moves to your battlefield, but it DOES trigger when it returns to the opponent's battlefield, that negates your argument above.

If the effect is triggered just entering a different battle field, it should either trigger both times or no times outside of when it first entered the overall battlefield. There is also some inconsistency with this from card to card, depending on the effect.

octal9

orgazmo wrote:

Also, logically speaking, if you use Turn Against, and it DOESNT trigger when it moves to your battlefield, but it DOES trigger when it returns to the opponent's battlefield, that negates your argument above.

Wrong. Read again what I said:

On return, it's entering the owner's battlefield, therefore the EtB effects trigger.

You do not own a creature when it's on your side of the board. If you steal a Persistent Nightmare with Turn Against, it returns to your opponent's hand after it attacks because they own it, not you. If you steal a Prized Amalgam with Malevolent Whispers and it dies, it returns to your opponent's graveyard because they own it, not you.

The effect is triggered when it enters the [card owner's] battlefield. It may be in Hibernum's interest to update this bit of card text.

ZW2007-

The bottom line is, this is working as intended. However, that does not mean this is working the way it should. Shoddy code is likely the result of these problems. Rather than try and figure out how to fix the code and make it work the way it should, they just say this is how we want it to work. Ownership of a card in paper is largely irrelevant except in cases where it specifically says the word 'owner'. Entering the battlefield only happens once, when the card is cast from the hand, and placed onto the battlefield. Not when control of a creature changes. This is broken but it's one of the many things that won't be fixed. Just like Turn Against messing up a 'summon less than 2 creatures' objective. If I summon two werewolves to meet the first objective, and then Turn Against is cast on one of them, it counts as me summoning a third creature. This is not at all correct.

wereotter

octal9 wrote:

wereotter wrote:

I think I remember it being a result of something they had to do with coding to denote possession of the creature.

This is correct. On return, it's entering the owner's battlefield, therefore the EtB effects trigger. For exert, the possession changes & then the creature enters your battlefield, triggering EtB.

Except if you've played paper magic, you know it's not. If I played Turn Against in that version my opponent doesn't get ETB effects when it returns to his or her control at the end of turn, nor do I get them with a permanent control spell as they never actually leave the battlefield.

It may be working as they intended, but it's not working as it should.

SeditiousCanary

octal9 wrote:

You do not own a creature when it's on your side of the board. If you steal a Persistent Nightmare with Turn Against, it returns to your opponent's hand after it attacks because they own it, not you. If you steal a Prized Amalgam with Malevolent Whispers and it dies, it returns to your opponent's graveyard because they own it, not you.

Gonti, Lord of Luxury does not work this way. When I steal a card with its EtB effect, and discard that card, it stays in my graveyard.

octal9

wereotter wrote:

Except if you've played paper magic, you know it's not.

I haven't, but people make this paper comparison all the time. Surprise! MtGPQ is not paper. It _can't_ be paper. The format is too different.

SeditiousCanary wrote:

Gonti, Lord of Luxury does not work this way. When I steal a card with its EtB effect, and discard that card, it stays in my graveyard.

You're the owner of that card; it's in your hand/library now.

It may be working as they intended, but it's not working as it should.

This is reasonable.

SeditiousCanary

octal9 wrote:

wereotter wrote:

Except if you've played paper magic, you know it's not.

I haven't, but people make this paper comparison all the time. Surprise! MtGPQ is not paper. It _can't_ be paper. The format is too different.

MTGO plays the same as paper. I get the format is different, but its contrary to the overall format, feel, and flavor of the game in comparison.

octal9 wrote:

SeditiousCanary wrote:

Gonti, Lord of Luxury does not work this way. When I steal a card with its EtB effect, and discard that card, it stays in my graveyard.

You're the owner of that card; it's in your hand/library now.

This is not how it works in either paper, or MTGO. There is a distinction between control, and own. Cards I own go to my graveyard. Cards I control go to the graveyard of the person who own them. This is one of the areas I think is really missed from a development standpoint.

wereotter

Also if this is intentional, then Turn Against, Exert Influence, and similar spells should be able to kill tokens since if those leave the battlefield, they cease to exist.

orgazmo

I agree that it might be working as intended, but it doesn't make sense for anyone that plays MTG in any other format. Nor does it make sense with the general game mechanics of MtGPQ or even the text on the cards.

I have a feeling its more like the DEVs would have to do a pretty big overhaul to make this function as it was supposed to in the first place, and because of the other issues they are facing, they've decided this one is working "enough" to let it go lower priority.

Trying to get a dev to admit they've made a implementation mistake is like trying to pull teeth

octal9

I mean, at its heart this is a match-3 game with an mtg license. Mechanics are going to work somewhat differently; you can either accept that or rage against the machine and get upset that it doesn't work the way you want it to.

orgazmo wrote:

Trying to get a dev to admit they've made a implementation mistake is like trying to pull teeth

Speaking for myself and my friends that are devs, this is false.

I admit quite quickly when I've made an implementation mistake - that's why you won't find Thopter Pie Network on mtgpq.info yet

orgazmo

octal9 wrote:

I mean, at its heart this is a match-3 game with an mtg license. Mechanics are going to work somewhat differently; you can either accept that or rage against the machine and get upset that it doesn't work the way you want it to.

orgazmo wrote:

Trying to get a dev to admit they've made a implementation mistake is like trying to pull teeth

Speaking for myself and my friends that are devs, this is false.

I admit quite quickly when I've made an implementation mistake - that's why you won't find Thopter Pie Network on mtgpq.info yet

Its not complaining that its not working the way I want it to, its because its not working the way both the card and play mechanics would lead you to believe.

I run a R&D division and we develop Android hardware, Android OS Manufacturer Customizations, and Apps. The best programmers generally assume they are right until proven wrong. I accept it, embrace it and work around it The fact you are arguing a broken idea in this thread for so long contradicts your statement (yes I am teasing you).

octal9

orgazmo wrote:

The fact you are arguing a broken idea in this thread for so long contradicts your statement (yes I am teasing you).

/shrug.

The thread title literally states it's a question about functionality; I am simply explaining the functionality of how it works in the game as currently written. If y'all feel it should be changed you should suggest so in the bugs or suggestions forum.

You asked a question, I answered it. The resulting replies boil down to "**** that's **** it should work this way" but that's not how it currently works, which is what the OP asks.

ZW2007-

The problem is that this is a 'bug' but because it is working the way they say it should, we just have to accept it. Just because they firmly believe what they say is true is actually the truth does not make it so. The battlefield is one entity, I don't have a battlefield while the AI has it's own separate battlefield. We both share the battlefield and are positioned on opposite sides of it. If I temporarily gain control of a creature (I control it but never gain ownership of it) it comes to hang out on my side of the battlefield until whatever effect that said I control it ends. At that point, it returns to its owner's side of the battlefield. At no point does it ever leave the battlefield. Therefore 'when xxxxx enters the battlefield, do this' effects should never trigger. If going to one side of the battlefield does trigger, it should trigger each time it switches sides but it doesn't. This is a match-3 that has a M:tG license and utilizes, at its core, M:tG game play. You have a deck of cards, you have a hand, you have a battlefield. These are all M:tG concepts that may or may not apply to match-3 games elsewhere (I don't know). You use mana to cast cards from your hand and place permanents onto the battlefield or cast spells. The difference here is that mana is generated through the match-3 system as opposed to tapping land for mana like in paper magic. At it's core, this is another take on playing M:tG. It should stick to basic functionality that exists in playing the paper form of M:tG. This isn't just some match-3 with planeswalker characters where you have to match 37 red gems to defeat the evil dragon planeswalker Nicol Bolas. You have to cast spells and creatures to beat your opponent's life total down to 0. Not every aspect of paper M:tG can translate into M:tG-PQ. Instant and sorcery cards became spells. Artifacts and enchantments became supports. Tokens became an ever-growing single creature as opposed to an ever-expanding army. All these things are fine because that's what it takes to translate M:tG into M:tG-PQ. In cases like this though, they didn't need to reinvent the wheel; and the only reason I can think as to why it is this way is because it was a design flaw, an oversight, or a problem in the core game code that simply cannot be fixed at this point. I am also trying to answer the OP's question. It's a bit of a mixed bag though. From the dev's perspective, working as intended. From my perspective, it's a bug. I see no need to make a suggestion to fix it because like with most things, it's pointless to do so. I don't expect it to ever be changed even if I do make the suggestion.