Ambergade Wraith & Bergade Wraith | Auremal Wraith & Bermal Wraith

[ZwibiX]

NAME: Ambergade Wraith ELEMENT: Earth COST: 5 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 4 | 6 TEXT: : Unearth Changes form into Bergade Wraith.	NAME: Auremal Wraith ELEMENT: Earth COST: 5 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 6 | 8 TEXT: : Unearth Changes form into Bermal Wraith.

ART: ZwibiX IDEA: ZwibiX NOTES: About Unearth: The card is put into its base state with ailments such as Aflatoxin, Petrification and Delay removed before the formchange into Bergade Wraith | Bermal Wraith. Disrupt | Distract doesn't remove the formchange. The creatures are Airborne. SERIES:

NAME: Bergade Wraith ELEMENT: Darkness COST: 7 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 7 | 4 TEXT: Grudge: Destroys a random permanent of the opponent if it dies (by the opponent or opponents creatures).	NAME: Bermal Wraith ELEMENT: Darkness COST: 7 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 9 | 6 TEXT: Grudge: Destroys a random permanent from the opponent, if it dies (by the opponent or opponents creatures).

ART: ZwibiX IDEA: ZwibiX NOTES: Mitosis and Parallel Universe spawn Bergade Wraith | Bermal Wraith if in this form. Grudge is totally random but it doesn't harm indestructible permanents or enchanted ones or any permanents under Cloak. The creatures are Airborne. Furthermore, while these creatures only legitimately spawn via Unearth, it is possible that cards that transform the target creature may turn into Bergade Wraith | Bermal Wraith and that Skeletons may turn into Bergade Wraith | Bermal Wraith. Fate Egg can only hatch into an Ambergade Wraith | Auremal Wraith. SERIES:

[Mr Muffin]

Does one have to Unearth an Ambergade or Auremal Wraith to get a Bergade Wraith/Bermal Wraith or are they separate cards?

[ZwibiX]

That's correct! they need to be Unearthed first!

[ZwibiX]

Quickly replying here, I didn't notice Odin's post about difficult mechanics! I'll change the quanta cost of their abilities, sorry for not noticing faster!

[ZwibiX]

"Quote from: OldTrees on November 27, 2013, 06:32:19 PM

    Quote from: andretimpa on November 27, 2013, 03:39:49 PM

        Quote from: OldTrees on November 27, 2013, 08:15:43 AM

            Quote from: andretimpa on November 25, 2013, 05:45:12 PM

                Quote from: EmeraldTiger on November 25, 2013, 05:38:08 PM

                    I think it has been said it has something to do with current code format.

                My opinion is that if things have gotten to the point where Zanz can't make this kind of change in a simple way, then it's way past the time that he considered doing some cleanup on his code


            Costs are coded as (Integer)(Type). To simulate a cost of the code would have to increase to (Integer)(Type)(Integer)(Type) at minimum and most likely would be upgraded to (Integer[])(Type[])

            I'm still gone, just visiting from a library computer.


        I don't know the specifics of flash programming, but this shouldn't be too hard to implement without, for example, rewriting the code of every single card (just rewrite the function that takes care of the costs to accept both formats of cost, a cleaner solution would be preferable, but would mean more work).

    I don't know the specifics of flash either. I am paraphrasing information from someone else (who did know flash), using my knowledge of Java and Object Orientated Programming.

    Yes all it would take is altering the cost function. Either to accept a variable number of inputs or to accept array and non-array inputs.


The best thing I can think of for such a system is this: (written in c++ish syntax)
struct cardcost
{
unsignied int piecenumber;
unsigned int[][] costpieces;
}
// piecenumber specifies how many costpieces are needed to pay for the card
// the costpieces array consist of 13-element arrays that specify how many of each element are needed to pay for each costpiece

Again, this would require a complete rewrite (it's not backwards compatible with the system Zanz is probably using), so don't expect it to pop up in the source code anytime soon"

The community seems to be split about this? For now, I don't think I'll make any changes as the current 'duo-quanta' cost is more logical this way, at least in my point of view and it is cooler as well (maybe).

[CactusKing]

Reverse Time returns the card to it's owner's deck, not the card that created it (shriekers evolved from graboids then RT'd remain as shriekers, Shard Golems return Shard Golems not SoI, and mutated creatures return as their final mutated state, not the creature they came from). It makes no sense that reverse time should change the card before returning it to the deck.
Also, Bergade Wraith's skill seems underpowered.  to remove 12 quanta, when gravity nymph's skill is  to remove up to 36 quanta AND provide healing, without forcing a duo or wasting turns transforming before being able to use it's skill.

[kaempfer13]

its skill is actually pretty powerfull and more similiar to discord than bh removing 12 quanta from one element if they only have one. Sure against rainbows its pretty meh as they on average gain 3 times as much quanta as a normal deck. also gravity nymph has horrible stats for the cost.
Personally I dont think it should remove more than 6 quanta from nonrainbows ever as that basically negates a turn with just one use.
About special rt interaction only real issue with that is text space; mummies/skellies are a thing and shrieker is a playable card on its own (though it could get the special interaction anyway for all I care); shard golem isnt just the shard, but a creature made of multiple shards (so technically it should put all the shards back in your hand except for one SoI (on top of deck with that), but thats silly for many reasons, so I like the alternative)

also it's funny how you stopped in your example as soon as you reached a number that 12 isn't divisible by (I would probably intead make it like take 1 from each quanta pool and if that less than 4 quanta take that much from the remaining quanta and reduce ability cost to 2, because rn the ability is really mean to monos).

[ZwibiX]

Updates made! I decided to use Disruptive Wave for a later card idea, now there's Grudge.

[OdinVanguard]

If I recall correctly, Zanz has been against implementing multiple element costs... not sure if that has to do more with coding reasons or just wanting to stay away from that particular path for distinction from games like MtG. Although, my best bet is that it has to do with the nature of deckbuilding considerations in EtG (which has many resources) vs MtG which has few.

What DOES seem to be okay (as far as I can tell) is letting more than one type be used.
E.g. you could make the cost be payed with either OR but NOT both 1 AND 1
This has some bearing on effective cost. E.g. the first one (pulling multiple elements interchangably) promotes use in a greater range of decks, while the latter (requiring both elements to be payed in specified amounts) promotes narrower utility.

In MtG where you see this a lot, there are relatively few resource types as compared with EtG (5 for MtG vs 12 for EtG). So making a card more restricted in its deck building options via resource requirements is much less burdensome than in EtG. In a sense, we face somewhat of the opposite challenge in terms of resource costs as compared to MtG.
Hope this gives a little insight to help you along.

[ZwibiX]

Updates made! Thank you Odin for informing me! I decided for simplicity reasons to let its ability cost two  . Without Darkness quanta gaining possibilities on the deck, it's still a relatively decent card, although the upped version is directly outclassed by Steel Golem.

[CactusKing]

Grudge is interesting and original, but also raises a question:
Does the random permanent selection exclude permanents that would not be affected by grudge? e.g. if they are immaterial, or hidden by cloak
Comparing this to chaos seed/pandemonium, which inflicts a random effect, regardless of whether that effect actually does anything to the creature (It may lobotomise something without a skill). I'm wondering if this will be completely random or only include destroyable permanents in the target calculation.

Either way, it sounds like a cool skill, but IMO one that would fit better on a different creature - perhaps something a little easier to kill, so the opponent has the option to take the risk of losing a permanent to deal with the Bergade wraith. Many decks will have trouble killing it, so the grudge is fairly situational.

[ZwibiX]

Ok, some slight changes made! Cactusking, Immaterial permanents or permanents under Cloak will not be affected! Also, Bergade Wraith | Bermal Wraith now have -1/-2 for a slight nerf!