Hello guys,
Thank you for all the information provided, this issue will be investigated!If you have any additional information that you consider relevant, please don't hesitate to send me 😊
Rebeca.
@Scrounger - I sincerely hope you succeed with your request.
Sadly, I have little faith in any change from Oktagon, because they seem unable to admit mistakes on subject of mana generation. Sadly, this stance ruins a huge potential for creating mechanism which focus on casting cards on your opponent’s turn.
The mechanics you are describing are completely different, one is causing direct matches and the other is causing indirect matches.. only direct matches count towards the owner of the effect that caused the match..
Healer of the pride converts and causes a match - goes to the owner of Healer.
Avaricious destroys gems. Done. Next mechanic triggers, in this case the one that repopulates the board by filling in gems from the top, a match is randomly made - mana goes to the owner of the turn.
I agree that it really sucks that this change made Avaricious Dragon such a terrible double edged blade to use, but the distinction is actually clean and easy to understand so i dont think they will go changing it again..
@KrizzB said: The mechanics you are describing are completely different, one is causing direct matches and the other is causing indirect matches.. only direct matches count towards the owner of the effect that caused the match.. Healer of the pride converts and causes a match - goes to the owner of Healer. Avaricious destroys gems. Done. Next mechanic triggers, in this case the one that repopulates the board by filling in gems from the top, a match is randomly made - mana goes to the owner of the turn. I agree that it really sucks that this change made Avaricious Dragon such a terrible double edged blade to use, but the distinction is actually clean and easy to understand so i dont think they will go changing it again..
@KrizzB said: The mechanics you are describing are completely different, one is causing direct matches and the other is causing indirect matches.. only direct matches count towards the owner of the effect that caused the match..
The original post that defined this rule specifically stated that mana from "breaks" would award that mana to the player whose turn it is.
https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/comment/945497/#Comment_945497
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).
Back when they made this ruling, I noted that:
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.
I don't see how Healer's ability would be any different than a green conversion spell.
@Scrounger said: 8gon, please change the game so that these effects are applied consistently and so that the mana is given to the player who controls the card whose effect is generating the mana.
As much as I would love for the game to go back to this outcome, that ruling is closing in on its second anniversary. I would be shocked if they suddenly backtracked on it.
@KrizzB - let me see if I understand your logic correctly.
Let us say that you play with healer of the pride(HOP) and it is your opponent’s turn. and HOP is triggered (once or multiple times) on your opponent’s turn. This creates what you call a direct match and mana goes to you. Now as new gems fall (from the top) to replace the directly matched gems, a new match is created. Would that match constitute a indirect match? If not why?
If yes, by your logic (as I understand it) the new indirect match should go to your opponent, since it is his turn. Is that correctly understood?
Now since I haven’t got HOP I can’t test this, but does the actual gameplay support this interpretation?
EDIT: I have looked at this video https://youtu.be/EvKAB_ISDzo from @Mainloop25 on YouTube If you would please look at the sequence from second 14 to 17. There is a indirect green match, which goes to the owner of HOP. Again if I understand your logic, that is an error. Am I correct?
@Oktagon_Support - Don’t know when this was put on the bug list as Working As Intended, but can we get an updated FAQ on the workings of mana gains since the answer to enhanced gems is related to this item in the FAQ?
The FAQ does include an explanation of the rules for this now.
Mana gain 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.
https://d3go.helpshift.com/hc/en/4-magic-puzzle-quest/faq/953-magic-puzzle-quest---gallery-of-rules-and-definitions/
@xibvert - you have revived a necro thread in an attempt to claim a problem has been fixed - without any documentation. That is a rather tiresome behaviour.
Apparently you have failed to understand the problem which is threefold. 1. Pretradon, Avaricious Dragon (and more) are unplayable because they are too expensive considering that they generate mana for your opponent. (The mana cost is still unchanged). 2. If you flash a creature that converts on ETB or use a conversion spell with flash, the mana generated goes to your opponent. Contrary to the wording in the exact same document you refer to. (Haven’t tested this lately, because why bother when the devs have decided to ignore any complaints). 3. The ”new” behaviour described in the document you refer to is contrary to how the game used to work, but the devs kept making a coding mistake which repeatedly meant the players had to make bug-reports on the cards listed in bullet 1. Finally, the devs gave up and changed the definition on how gem conversion and gem destruction worked (which they are allowed to do, but sadly they left some issues they refused to acknowledge).
Regarding the enlist mechanism I simply can’t remember all the details 18 months later, but it is problematic due to its relation to the conversion/destruction problem.
I will not exclude the possibility that the devs has included an attempt at fixing this in the last 18 months (which I haven’t seen), but the basic issue is still there.
@Tremayne I read this thread and found it interesting. I saw two people mention that the FAQ should include rules about mana gain. After checking the FAQ, I found that such rules do exist and posted them here for the benefit of anyone else who might read this.
Given that current rules they're providing exactly match the behavior the original post describes and this is also how the game is still functioning I don't see what further documentation you're expecting me to provide or why the problem of the original poster would be considered an issue at this point since the effect and the rules match.
Issues 1 and 3 aren't bugs or technically issues as the behavior you're describing matches the rules provided. While that may not have been clear before the rules were provided, it is now. At this point it would be better to post in https://forums.d3go.com/categories/mtgpq-suggestions-feedback if you think the rules and functionality should be changed.
Issue 2 isn't a problem unless it's a card specific problem in which case you'd need to be more specific about which card and probably want to post those details in a new thread. I have recently tested flash casting a conversion spell during the opponent's turn and I got the mana that was generated from it, which is consistent with the documented rules. If you'd like further details about what I tested please let me know.