Altering the board on your opponent’s turn

Tremayne

@Oktagon_Support - Could you please clarify rules concerning gem destruction and gem conversion?

I have always been puzzled by the apparent rule change in this thread https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/comment/945623#Comment_945623

I’m referring to this: 

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).

The answer didn’t follow the established gameplay, as can be seen by the following questions and feedback in that thread.

However, something was bugging me about it, because I felt sure there was an inconsistency between the rule governing these cards (Avaricious Dragon, Petradon and Sundering Titan) and other cards, which can also alter the board on my opponent’s turn and thereby generate mana to me. 

My best example is “omen of the hunt” which is specifically designed to be cast during your opponent’s turn. So I have played around a bit with this card and just now I managed to observe what I was bugged about in your answer above.

I’m playing Sarkhan Unbroken in ATV and I cast OotH on my opponent’s turn. Gems are converted and swaps are made. Now I would expect the mana to go to my opponent as per your answer above (My working theory was that Flash on OotH was useless). Oddly enough the mana generated was given to me.

After scrutinising the cards, the only difference between the mentioned cards are destruction and conversion, so could you @Oktagon_Support or a GD please answer my original question above?

jtwood

Two things:

1. This needs to be in bugs
2. Here’s an image of me getting mana when my Simulacrum was brought into play on Greg’s turn (bottom node, CotC)

Volrak

The introduction of that rule seemed to be an attempt to address bugs we've had with mana going to the wrong player, with an approach of specifying an overarching principle.  I like the approach, but not the principle, because it can lead to one player getting mana when everything to cause the gem match was done by the other player.  E.g. it can be my Avaricious Dragon, with my card draw trigger, and the opponent can get the mana despite having nothing to do with the cascade - it just happened to be their turn.

I had a thought about what principles might be better, and here's how I would be doing it.

For any gem match or cascade, identify the "controlling player" who started the cascade:

• For a gem swap: It's the player who made the gem swap.
• For any other effect causing a gem match: It's the player who controls the effect which destroyed or converted the gems starting the cascade.

The whole cascade from start to end is then considered as belonging to the controlling player.  That means:

• The controlling player gets all the mana from the cascade.
• Activated gems of the controlling player can be triggered in the cascade; the other player's activated gems can be destroyed without triggering.

Tremayne

@jtwood - maybe this is a bug, but who knows without a GD clarifying my original question.

@Volrak - sounds a lot like how MTGPQ already does most of the gem management, but somehow not for the terrible threes (after the rule change).

jtwood

Tremayne said:

@jtwood - maybe this is a bug, but who knows without a GD clarifying my original question.

My thinking about moving this to Bugs is that it might actually get answered there. Otherwise, you're probably better off submitting it to the monthly Q&A.

Magic:PQ Support Team

Hi guys, 

Thank you for the interest!
I will try to get an answer about this. Then, we can decide to move this or not to the Bugs and Technical Issues section.

Marcela.

Tremayne

Did we ever get an answer to this @Oktagon_Support.

I’m asking because the card Old-growth troll seems to contradict the stated behaviour for mana during your opponent’s turn.

jtwood

Tremayne said:

Did we ever get an answer to this @Oktagon_Support.

I’m asking because the card Old-growth troll seems to contradict the stated behaviour for mana during your opponent’s turn.

Reported here  https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/85424/old-growth-troll-and-out-of-turn-gem-conversion-investigating

Marked as ready to be fixed in the next release here  https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/61987/bug-status-list-update-9-1-2021

The general topic needs to be addressed, though. For example, cards like Avaricious Dragon were designed with a cost based on the dragon’s owner always getting the mana. Will those cards have cost reductions to offset their new downside? The Omen example above is a great example of a card that is theoretically designed to always give mana to your opponent because do flash. Will older cards be changed to observe the new rule? Will card language ever be introduced that overrides this rule?

Overall, this was a hasty change. How much are they going to retroactively update the game to support it?

Tremayne

@jtwood - thank you for highlighting the bug report on the troll. Should have checked the forum before posting.

However, the troll is actually working as I would have expected, so I’m fearing the “fix” in 5.2. But basically we haven’t gotten a reply to the original question/request. 😟

jtwood

Tremayne said:

@jtwood - thank you for highlighting the bug report on the troll. Should have checked the forum before posting.

However, the troll is actually working as I would have expected, so I’m fearing the “fix” in 5.2. But basically we haven’t gotten a reply to the original question/request. 😟

Can you elaborate on “is actually working as expected” please? In my link, the video shows mana going to the person whose turn is not active. What are you seeing today?

Tremayne

@jtwood - I see the same as you, the mana goes to the owner of the troll and not to the player which turn it is. That is not how the rule say it should be.

But here’s the reason for me stating the troll is working as expected: I think the GD messed up when they changed the rule to “all mana goes to the current player”. 😁 I got the impression that Oktagon was unable to maintain the legacy code of avaricious dragon and therefore decided it was easier to just change the rule.

I find it extremely funny that Oktagon has now proven that they can code cards like AD correctly, but they now get bug reports on the reverse situation. 

jtwood

Yes, we all get that impression, too, but we are stuck with their new reality and have to deluge them with reports of cards working as originally designed but no longer in conformance with their whimsy. 

They chose this, and rolled it out unannounced, so I don’t feel bad about repeatedly bringing it to their attention. 

Tremayne

@jtwood - hey, what about the D20 mechanism (which I despise and have actively avoided exploring), but isn’t there something about scrambling the board after rolling a D20? And who gets that mana (assuming there is a card that rolls a D20 on your opponents turn, again very unfamiliar with D20).

I’ll try and see if I have any cards that triggers on my opponent’s turn and then test their behaviour.

Update - there are only a few cards that rolls a D20 on my opponent’s turn, but I have so far been unable to shuffle the board and get a match (have seen it happen earlier today when I was matched up against someone with D20 in their deck).

Volrak

jtwood said:

Yes, we all get that impression, too, but we are stuck with their new reality and have to deluge them with reports of cards working as originally designed but no longer in conformance with their whimsy. 

They chose this, and rolled it out unannounced, so I don’t feel bad about repeatedly bringing it to their attention. 

I don't think players giving feedback are stuck into one course of action at all.  There've been many instances in the past of a decision being changed when a better choice became clear later.  I think players should advocate for what they see as being best for the game.

Volrak

Tremayne said:

@jtwood - hey, what about the D20 mechanism (which I despise and have actively avoided exploring), but isn’t there something about scrambling the board after rolling a D20? And who gets that mana (assuming there is a card that rolls a D20 on your opponents turn, again very unfamiliar with D20).

I’ll try and see if I have any cards that triggers on my opponent’s turn and then test their behaviour.

Update - there are only a few cards that rolls a D20 on my opponent’s turn, but I have so far been unable to shuffle the board and get a match (have seen it happen earlier today when I was matched up against someone with D20 in their deck).

If you can catch that on video it would be interesting, since my understanding is the shuffle mechanic is designed to not cause any gem matches.

BongoTheGrey

I have played with D20 rolls a lot and like Volrak said, no matches happen at all after a D20 roll. Never.

Tremayne

Fair enough, I might be remembering a different scenario then.

andrewvanmarle

Volrak said:

For any gem match or cascade, identify the "controlling player" who started the cascade:

The whole cascade from start to end is then considered as belonging to the controlling player. 

I Whole heartedly agree with this.

effects like that troll  shouldn't benefit the player who doesn't controll those cards.  They become a punishment instead of a boon.

Magic:PQ Support Team

Hey guys,

I took this discussion to the GDs and they helped me to rewrite the "Mana Gain"  part of the Gallery of Rules and Definitions FAQ, I hope it can help clarify your doubts. The new text says:

Regarding the conversion and destruction of gems, they perform differently:

• Whenever a player converts gems, if that conversion results in a match, that player gains the mana from that match and its cascades (if any), regardless of who is the turn's owner.
  
  
• Whenever there is a gem destruction during the turn, any match that occurs at that time belongs to the owner of the turn, including cascades. Therefore, if the player destroys 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). Also, matches from swaps always give mana to the turn's owner. 

Rebeca.

Tremayne

@Oktagon_Support - thank you for clarifying this. Now that the rules are clear, the players can anticipate the outcome better than before.

Not to be annoying, but this clarification does not fix everything, as there are still a number of outstanding issues with cards that either have incorrect terminology or excessive mana cost. I suppose that is for a different thread?

jtwood

Oktagon_Support said:

Hey guys,

I took this discussion to the GDs and they helped me to rewrite the "Mana Gain"  part of the Gallery of Rules and Definitions FAQ, I hope it can help clarify your doubts. The new text says:

Regarding the conversion and destruction of gems, they perform differently:

• Whenever a player converts gems, if that conversion results in a match, that player gains the mana from that match and its cascades (if any), regardless of who is the turn's owner.
  
  
• Whenever there is a gem destruction during the turn, any match that occurs at that time belongs to the owner of the turn, including cascades. Therefore, if the player destroys 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). Also, matches from swaps always give mana to the turn's owner. 

Rebeca.

I would love to know why these two events are treated so differently.