Why are Avaracious Dragon, Petradon, and Sundering Titan still broken??? [As Designed]

Endbringer

All three of the above mentioned creatures are still broken after all this time, after numerous people have mentioned it several times in the forums and I just want to know why they haven't gone in and fixed them? If ever any of their abilities are triggered during the opponent's turn and gems are destroyed, any matches made by these creature's actions, will provide mana for the opponent. This really ruins a lot of opportunities for good combinations and deck builds with those 2 masterpieces and a commonly used mythic creature. The AI gets way more than enough gem matches and cascades as it is, too much; we don't need our own creatures giving them more. Those matches and that mana should go to the player using those creatures. Will you fix it or no?

Magic:PQ Support Team

Thank you for the feedback, this issue will be added to the investigation!

In order to help us, please provide the following information (you can PM me the answer if you prefer, or send it to Customer Support in-game):

• The Planeswalker you use and its level.

• Is it happening in a specific Event/Battle?

• Do you have any BattleLog screenshots?

• All cards in the deck and possible interactions that might have happened.

Thank you,

Marcela.

Magic:PQ Support Team

GD: When there is a gem break during the turn, any match that occurs at that time belongs to the owner of the turn. Therefore, if the player breaks gems on the enemy's turn and, consequently, matches occur, the mana generated by these matches will go to the enemy (owner of the turn).

Tremayne

@Oktagon_Support - what!?! Please verify this with the design department/lead game designer.I assume that GD = Game Designer. 

So is this a complete reversal of a mechanism that has been around since Origins? If so, shouldn’t fundamental changes be announced in-game?

Are you aware you have fixed this bug countless times? The last time was in the fall of 2020?

Honestly, it sounds like the devs are simply not able to fix this and keep the mechanism working consistently. So instead of solving a complex issue, the devs have decided it is easier to simply nullify an old card. 

If you insists on this shocking change, Shouldn’t you reduce the mana cost of Avaricious Dragon, Petradon and Sundering Titan by 6-10 mana? The cards become toxic to play because the longer they are the battlefield the greater the chance is that you are helping your opponent by having these creatures on the field.

Horadrim

I actually agree that all mana generated by gem matches during one's turn goes to the owner of the turn... including matches triggered by cascades or gem breaks by opponent (in this case Avaricious Dragon if you cast an effect that let your opponent draw cards during your turn, hence triggering its ability and possible gem match after gem break, or killing/exiling Petradon or Sundering Titan, hence triggering their abilities and possible gem match after gem break). It is my turn, I initiated the effect (let opponent draw card that triggers Avaricious Dragon ability, or kill Petradon/Sundering Titan), so I better get the mana.

Tremayne

@Horadrim - what about flash cards? Your turn, you attack. I respond with a flashed creature to cover your attack. Who is supposed to get the mana? I cast the card, by your description, I should get the mana, sine you didn’t trigger my flash.

jtwood

Wow. Didn’t expect this. Massive change from how the cards worked for... a long time. And no notification, too. This one’s a big time feel bad. 

Horadrim

Tremayne said:

@Horadrim - what about flash cards? Your turn, you attack. I respond with a flashed creature to cover your attack. Who is supposed to get the mana? I cast the card, by your description, I should get the mana, sine you didn’t trigger my flash.

Let's also take a look at how Settle the Wreckage works. Opponent's turn... opponent's creatures attack, they get exiled and convert gems to opponen'ts colors, cascades... mana goes to opponent even if Settle the Wreckage triggered the effect. Flash mechanic is similar to Settle the Wreckage's, so the game designers probably decided to standardize it for coding purposes so that it will also prevent the other recurring bug of giving mana to opponent when matching that indestructible/resilient gem.

Tremayne

@Horadrim - is your settle the wreckage example a troll post?

STW specifically says it modifies your opponents creatures so that if my effect removes his creatures then he gets a compensation.

(None of the cards I listed has this stated in their text, which is why I suggested a mana reduction, if this decision was upheld).

I do not agree that STW and flash are comparable in the way you describe it. I know the flash mechanic has been updated since the arrival of the card “flash”. However, that card clearly illustrates that Flash allows you to do something on your opponent’s turn while STW is a card that takes effect on an opponent’s turn.

You might think that is the same but I would disagree completely with such a misguided notion.

Horadrim

Tremayne said:

@Horadrim - is your settle the wreckage example a troll post?

STW specifically says it modifies your opponents creatures so that if my effect removes his creatures then he gets a compensation.

(None of the cards I listed has this stated in their text, which is why I suggested a mana reduction, if this decision was upheld).

I do not agree that STW and flash are comparable in the way you describe it. I know the flash mechanic has been updated since the arrival of the card “flash”. However, that card clearly illustrates that Flash allows you to do something on your opponent’s turn while STW is a card that takes effect on an opponent’s turn.

You might think that is the same but I would disagree completely with such a misguided notion.

No. It's definitely not a troll post. Both are interrupts (old version of instants that can be played on opponent's turn), the only difference is STW is already on the board while flash is in your hand. The game designers most likely based their decision to implement this "new" change based on my examples to finally "settle the wreckage" of these recurring bugs (including the indestructible/resilient and probably now the ignited gem?) 😜. I will leave this discussion here... we can ponder all we want why the GD implemented this decision, object to it or agree to it, but at the end of the day, we have to respect the GD decision. Cheers!

jtwood

FWIW, I tested this with regular cards and gave them flash. Green gem conversion spells, ETB creatures that destroy blocks of gems... They all gave resulting mana to the opponent when played on Greg's turn.

BongoTheGrey

First thing that I have to say about this is that I'm glad there's an explicit rule that at least controls how the mana gains from matches should behave. That is a major improvement!

Thanks a lot to jtwood for testing this and making sure that the rule is actually working as it should.

I have to agree 100% with Horadrim that we have to respect the GD decision. This game has sooooo many different possible interactions that if making this rule makes the game more stable I'm completely OK with it.

But on the other hand I also agree 100% with Tremayne that if this is the case then cards like Petradon and Sundering Titan should cost waaaay less mana. What incentive do I have to play a 19 (Petradon) and 23 (Sundering Titan) mana creature that has a really high chance of giving my opponent a ton of mana when it dies? Those creatures where designed BEFORE this implementation and the mana cost made sense back then. Right now those are almost useless creatures. They should be really cheap creatures because of the risk involved for playing them. Kind of like Goldnight Castigator which is an 8/16 creature with flying and haste but you know that you would take double damage while it is on the battlefield so it makes sense that you are willing to take that risk for 8 mana early in the game.

I don't see how this change affects Avaricious Dragon in a major way since most of the decks never run cards that make your opponent draw besides Day's Undoing. So I cannot think right now of any other scenario where Greg would make me draw during his turn. This actually makes me want to use Day's Undoing more so if I encounter a deck that uses Avaricious Dragon I can get not only the 3 mana Day's Undoing gives to each of my cards but also all the mana I would get after Greg's Avaricious Dragon destroys gems on my turn.

Tremayne

@Horadrim - Thank you for taking the time to offer your opinion on this subject. While I do not totally agree with your position, I have gained valuable insight from your comments.

BongoTheGrey said:

First thing that I have to say about this is that I'm glad there's an explicit rule that at least controls how the mana gains from matches should behave. That is a major improvement!

I couldn’t agree more, the missing rules is such a huge issue, that I value “wrong” rules miles above undefined or unwritten rules.

BongoTheGrey said:

Thanks a lot to jtwood for testing this and making sure that the rule is actually working as it should.

Concur, great work @jtwood.

BongoTheGrey said:

I have to agree 100% with Horadrim that we have to respect the GD decision. This game has sooooo many different possible interactions that if making this rule makes the game more stable I'm completely OK with it.

Totally correct, the GD has the final say and I respect that authority. I still retain the wish to challenge and influence those decisions if I feel the need to.

BongoTheGrey said:

But on the other hand I also agree 100% with Tremayne that if this is the case then cards like Petradon and Sundering Titan should cost waaaay less mana. What incentive do I have to play a 19 (Petradon) and 23 (Sundering Titan) mana creature that has a really high chance of giving my opponent a ton of mana when it dies? Those creatures where designed BEFORE this implementation and the mana cost made sense back then. Right now those are almost useless creatures. They should be really cheap creatures because of the risk involved for playing them. Kind of like Goldnight Castigator which is an 8/16 creature with flying and haste but you know that you would take double damage while it is on the battlefield so it makes sense that you are willing to take that risk for 8 mana early in the game.

Great elaboration and support for my suggestion. 😄

BongoTheGrey said:

I don't see how this change affects Avaricious Dragon in a major way since most of the decks never run cards that make your opponent draw besides Day's Undoing. So I cannot think right now of any other scenario where Greg would make me draw during his turn. This actually makes me want to use Day's Undoing more so if I encounter a deck that uses Avaricious Dragon I can get not only the 3 mana Day's Undoing gives to each of my cards but also all the mana I would get after Greg's Avaricious Dragon destroys gems on my turn.

I still think that the new rule introduces a toxic flaw in AD that leaves it vulnerable to exploitation which limits the value of AD. Since DU is in standard this flaw will never go away (as long as this rule exists). However, since it is so difficult to exploit a smaller reduction in mana cost compared to the other cards could be sensible.

edit - other cards that forces the opponent to draw.

standard - Days undoing, peer into the abyss. 
legacy - Ob nixhilis the hate-twisted, painfull lesson, lost legacy, prism array, fevered visions.

maybe there are more but then I think it will be combos with flash.