Enlist gems not following the "turn owner gets matched mana" rule [Investigating]

Options
stikxs
stikxs Posts: 518 Critical Contributor
edited October 2022 in MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
When it is Player 1's turn and something happens that triggers an effect from Player 2 and that effect results in gem matches the mana from said match goes to Player 1 (according to that really bad rule decision). However if the effect from Player 2 is to enlist gems and results in a match then the mana is given to Player 2. This occurred when I was playing Elspeth1 against a Dakkon with Healer of the Pride on the battlefield and I used my first loyalty.

Comments

  • Tremayne
    Tremayne Posts: 1,611 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    IIRC There is a distinction between “gem conversion” and “gem destruction” which I can’t remember - however it should be in the faq. 

    Anyways, It is a hopeless ruling, but the devs just won’t admit mistakes, so we have to live with to current mess.
  • Magic:PQ Support Team
    Magic:PQ Support Team ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 3,277 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options

    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
    Scrounger Posts: 64 Match Maker
    edited October 2022
    Options
    I think it's super cool that enlist gems are working this way. Say I have a Healer of the Pride out, and Greg casts a creature, then Healer creates 3 enlist gems and if a match is created by making 3 enlist gems, then I, as the owner of the Healer get the mana and loyalty.

    That I get mana from this on Greg's turn is how all effects should work that I own. For example, if I have an Avaricious Dragon in play, and Greg makes me draw on Greg's turn, thereby triggering Avaricious Dragon's destroy-gems ability, if a match is made because of the gems the dragon destroyed, then I should get the resulting mana and loyalty, not Greg, because I am the controller of Avaricious Dragon. Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way for Avaricious Dragon. It should.

    The solution to these inconsistencies should be to create a streamlined, consistent rule that says if a player controls an effect that results in mana being generated on the opponent's turn, then the player who controls the effect should get the mana, not the player whose turn it is. This would make Avaricious Dragon and Healer of the Pride work the same way. This is how the game should work. If I control Avarcious Dragon and Healer of the Pride and Greg casts a creature on his turn and makes me draw a card, and then the dragon and Healer's abilities result in mana being generated, then I should get the mana because I control the cards and the concomitant card abilities that generated the mana. Greg should not get the mana.

    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.

  • Tremayne
    Tremayne Posts: 1,611 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options

    @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.

  • KrizzB
    KrizzB Posts: 92 Match Maker
    Options

    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..

  • jtwood
    jtwood Posts: 1,285 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited October 2022
    Options

    @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..

    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.

  • Tremayne
    Tremayne Posts: 1,611 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited October 2022
    Options

    @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?

  • Tremayne
    Tremayne Posts: 1,611 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2023
    Options

    @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?

Categories