itch.io

Hi everyone,

Thank you for the engaging discussions.

We have identified two similar situations regarding limits:

Restricted Limit

“20021” (Side Holster) states:

You can control 1 additional [[weapon]] upgrade that has the restricted keyword.

The “Restricted” rule specifies:

A player cannot have more than two cards with the restricted keyword in play under their control at the same time.

When you lose the “20021” ability, you must immediately choose and discard restricted cards until you have a number of restricted cards in play equal to your limit.

Ally Limit

“01073” (The Triskelion) states:

Increase your ally limit by 1.

The “Ally Limit” rule specifies:

Each player is permitted to control a maximum of three allies in play at any given time.

When you lose the “01073” ability, you must immediately choose and discard ally cards until you have a number of allies in play equal to your limit.

---

These mechanics work because we have a Restricted/Ally Limit Monitor that processes whenever your restricted or ally cards change.

Based on these rules, the alter-ego side of “32001a” (Colossus) does not have the ability:

Colossus can have 1 additional tough status card.

Therefore, when Colossus flips to alter-ego form, he immediately loses this ability, which should trigger a tough limit Monitor.

Additionally, effects that treat him as blank (such as being attacked by “45083a”) will also cause him to lose this ability and should trigger the tough limit Monitor.

However, we have not implemented a tough limit Monitor in the current version (0.5.8.199), so it does not function as intended. We plan to implement this feature in the next version.

Thank you for your understanding!

Hi @Solar160,

Thank you for reaching out! I understand that you’re having trouble getting the images to load. To help us troubleshoot, could you please provide a bit more detail about the steps you’ve taken? Specifically:

1. Which folder did you unzip the marvel-lcg-v0.5.8.199.zip and assets_pics.zip files into?
2. What changes did you make to the launch.json file?

Also, please ensure that you perform the “Empty Cache and Hard Reload” action, as this can sometimes make a difference.

Looking forward to your response so we can get this sorted out!

Hi @Haze01,

Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed explanation of the interaction regarding “01113” (Klaw) and “20003” (Grasping Tendrils). Your thorough breakdown, including references to the Rules Reference, is greatly appreciated and helps us understand the issue more clearly.

We acknowledge your strong assertion that Klaw’s ability should be treated as a modifier-type alteration effect, which would prevent the additional boost card from being dealt prematurely. While this interpretation may initially seem counterintuitive, we recognize the validity of your argument based on the provided rules references. Updating our code to reflect this interpretation should be feasible, and we plan to address this in our next version, ensuring a more rules-consistent gameplay experience.

If you or any other community members have further insights or concerns regarding this interpretation or its broader implications, please don’t hesitate to share. Your input is invaluable in refining our game’s balance and adherence to its ruleset.

Once again, thank you for your vigilance in identifying potential discrepancies and for contributing to the game’s improvement. Your efforts, alongside those of our community, are crucial in enhancing the gaming experience for everyone.

@kata7:

Thank you for your feedback regarding the Surge keyword. If I understand correctly, you are pointing out that the cards drawn due to Surge should be revealed before any other cards, but they are currently being revealed last.

This issue is likely caused by our recent update related to this post. We will address this in the next version.

Thank you for your patience!

Hi @Haze01,

Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. I’m sorry to hear that you’re experiencing difficulties with the latest version.

After reviewing our recent update log, we identified two potential reasons for the problem you’re encountering:

1. We updated the version of PyInstaller (the game compiler) from 6.6.0 to 6.12.0.
2. We merged the crash-handler.exe into the marvel-lcg.exe.

To help alleviate your concerns, here are some online scan results for your reference:

1. Jotti’s Malware Scan
2. VirusTotal Scan

If you’re still worried about these issues, I recommend running the application in a virtual environment and ensuring that the necessary ports are forwarded for gameplay.

Please let us know if you have any further questions or need additional assistance. We’re here to help!

Hi ZaAurii4,

No problem at all! I understand how that goes.

It sounds like the issue might be related to the IP address you’re using. The default IP address, 127.0.0.1, is only for your local machine (the PC running the game). To connect from your iPhone, you’ll need to use your WAN IP address instead. You can find more information on how to do this in the “Multiplayer Setup” section of this link. And this post might also help.

If you’re not sure what your WAN IP is, you might want to reach out to your network provider or search online for guidance.

If you’ve already set it to your WAN IP and are still having issues, please share more details with us. Specifically, let us know what your PC’s WAN IP is, how you configured the launch.json file, and any output from the console. This will help us troubleshoot further.

Just a reminder: if you do provide your public IP address, please remember to hide any private information for your own security.

Thanks for your patience, and we’re here to help!

Hi @quantumodo,

Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention regarding version v0.5.8.199. We were able to reproduce the situation you described. However, we couldn’t find any specific rule or FAQ that addresses this scenario.

If you have any references to rules or FAQs that might clarify this, please share them with us. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks again for your help!

Hi kata7,

Thank you for your message! You mentioned, “The card ‘02041’ says ‘When defeated,’ however, it activates ‘When revealed.’”

We have noted this discrepancy and will investigate the issue further. Your feedback is invaluable in helping us improve the game.

Hi kata7,

Thank you for your message! You mentioned, “The card ‘09003’ should remove 3 threat from a scheme. Then look at the top card of the encounter deck and remove 1 threat for each boost icon. Currently, this card ‘09003’ only performs the second part, removing 1 threat for each boost icon, but not the initial 3.”

We have reproduced this bug and will work on a fix. We appreciate your feedback and patience as we resolve this issue.

Hi @Emigarsan,

Thank you for the clarification regarding “21058.” It makes sense now that the confusion arose from using it in the hero form. We appreciate your understanding and feedback!

If you encounter any more issues or have further questions, feel free to reach out. Your input is invaluable in helping us improve the game.

Thanks again!

Hi ZaAurii4,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I think you might be referring to “Safari” instead of “Sifri.” If that’s the case, it should be possible to get it working, but you’ll need to ensure you’re using Safari version 15.4 or higher. You can check out this link for more details on compatibility.

We did test the project on Android Chrome, and while it works, the experience isn’t perfect. So far, we’ve only tested it on Windows 11. If you’re still having trouble, could you let us know what steps you’ve taken and what issues you’re encountering? We’re here to help!

Thanks for your support and for getting your friends involved!

Hi @quantumodo,

Thank you for checking on this rule!

Regarding your point about delaying the selection of targets, I agree that it serves as a useful guiding principle for coding the script. Since the rules and FAQ do not specify when to select targets, we can use this as a temporary coding guide. However, confirmation from FFG would certainly provide more clarity.

As for “33010” (Tactical Brilliance), it already incorporates a delayed selection. For cards with multiple effect parts, all selectors except for the first one are treated as delayed selections. For example, the effect part “Deal 8 damage to an enemy” in “12003” and the effect part “Remove 2 threat from the main scheme” in “42015”.

Thank you again for your insights!

Hi @Emigarsan,

Thank you for your bug report regarding cards “22006” and “21058” in version 0.5.8.166.

You are correct that we did not implement the correct target selector for “22006,” and we will address this issue in the next version.

Regarding “21058,” we were unable to reproduce the bug you mentioned. After spending this card, a prompt should appear to heal an ally, unless there are no allies available to heal. Could you please provide us with more details about your experience with “21058”? Specifically, it would be helpful to know the scenario you were playing and which cards were in play at that time. If possible, attaching a save file would greatly assist us in diagnosing the problem.

Thank you for your assistance!

Hi @quantumodo,

Thank you for your message.

Regarding “15019” (Spiritual Meditation), I believe it can be interpreted as having two distinct effect parts:

1. Draw 2 cards.
2. Choose and discard 1 card from your hand.

These effects will be resolved sequentially after playing the card, and each effect part has its own targets:

1. For part 1, there are no targets.
2. For part 2, the target is one card in your hand.

We refer to the target of part 2 as a “delay select,” meaning the target is chosen during the resolution of the effect rather than beforehand. Our script is designed this way to align with this intent.

As for “37001b” (Thief Extraordinaire), since the FAQ states that you don’t need to select a target before looking at the top 2 cards, we can update the script for “37001b” to a “delay select” to comply with the FAQ.

And finally, regarding “45009” (Energy Conversion) in this topic, the question is now: is “each resource card in your discard pile” considered a “normal select” or a “delay select”?

I welcome any thoughts you may have on this topic, as my understanding might be incorrect.

Hi @Emigarsan,

Thank you for reporting the issues with cards “40043” “40041” “40064” and “40079” in version 0.5.8.166.

Please note that “40079” (Morlock) is a duplicate of the issue reported here: https://itch.io/post/12241466

For the other cards, we have reproduced the issues you mentioned. They appear to be due to incorrect script writing, and we will address them in the next version.

Thank you for your feedback!

Hi @quantumodo,

I want to change my opinion because I remembered something important.

In card “09039,” it states:

Reduce the cost to play each upgrade on Iron Man by 1.

An upgrade card can be interpreted as:

Action: Attach this to a legal target.

In the “INITIATING ABILITIES” section, step 2 reads:

Determine the cost (or costs) to play the card, …, taking modifiers into account.

For “09039,” we need to determine the target to ensure the modifiers apply correctly. Therefore, I believe this means you must select the target before paying the cost.

While the rulebook mentions checking for a valid target in step 1, it does not specify in which step the target must be chosen.

By the way, implementing “09039” took us a considerable amount of time, and we updated the entire cost system just for this card.

Hi @quantumodo,

Thank you for your detailed explanation! I appreciate your insights regarding the initiation of abilities.

I agree with your points about the steps involved in initiating an ability. Specifically, in the INITIATING ABILITIES section, it states:

• STEP 1: As you mentioned, this step only requires checking if there is at least one valid target for the ability.
• STEP 5: This is where the costs are paid, and any cards used for payment are moved to the discard pile.
• STEP 7: This step involves resolving the ability, during which the targets are selected.

In the TARGET section, it states:

The phrase “choose a [game element]” indicates that one or more targets must be selected in order for an ability to initiate.

Since “45009” does not include the phrase “choose a [game element],” it implies that all resource cards, including those just discarded to pay for the effect, should be shuffled back into the deck.

We will update the scrip of “45009” in the next version.

Hi @quantumodo,

Thank you for your response. However, the rule you provided only states that you should resolve the effect after paying the cost; it does not clarify whether you should select the targets of that ability before or after paying.

After giving it considerable thought, I still believe that targets should be selected before payment. For example, consider a card that reads:

Action: Shuffle each card in your discard pile into your deck.

You cannot trigger this card if you have no cards in your discard pile, even if you can discard cards to pay for it.

If you have any differing opinions or insights, I would love to hear them.

Hi @quantumodo,

Thank you for your feedback. If I understand correctly, you are saying that in the current game version (v0.5.8.166), the encounter cards are revealed in reverse order, with the last card dealt being revealed first. However, according to rule 1.6, the first card dealt should be revealed first.

We initially based our development on rule 1.5 and didn’t prioritize updates to the rules. While updating the mechanic to align with rule 1.6 is certainly feasible, it would likely break at least half of our existing test cases, as they are all based on rule 1.5.

To address this, we are considering adding an option for this mechanic in the future.

Additionally, if you would like to slow down the animation, you can pause the game by pressing the Space button or adjust the animation speed in the right sidebar.

Thank you for your understanding, and please feel free to share any further thoughts!

Hi @quantumodo,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention! We weren’t aware of Card Table before, and it looks like a great app.

After testing their code, we found an API that allows access to “private” decks, but it requires users to enable the “Share your decks” option in their settings.

We will consider adding this feature in the next version.

Hi everyone,

I have a question about “45009.”

“45009” reads:

Shuffle each resource card in your discard pile into your deck.

My question is, does “each resource card” include the resource cards that you just paid for “45009”?

Alternatively, does “45009” select targets (each resource card) before paying for it or after paying for it?

I understand that “45009” has a cost of 0, but you can still use resource cards to pay for it.

I personally lean towards the idea that the selection happens before paying, based on the ability resolution flow:

1. Select card (ability)
2. Select targets
3. Select payment
4. Pay for that ability
5. Process the targets selected in step 2

However, I’m not entirely sure if this process is correct. If anyone can find any FAQ or rule that addresses this, please let us know!

Hi @kata7,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention regarding version 0.5.8.166.

Regarding the villain card being able to attach to your hero, we have found a rule that addresses this situation:

REFERENTIAL ABILITY

Some abilities refer to specific cards by name. These are called referential abilities. If an ability refers to a title shared by multiple cards in the game, that ability refers only to the card(s) that match the criteria highest in this list:

1. The card on which the referential ability is printed.
2. Cards that belong to the same identity or encounter set.
3. All other cards.

We will implement this in the next version. In the current version, please select the correct target yourself.

Regarding unique cards, we believe that the inability to play them is part of the game design.

If you have any further thoughts or questions, feel free to reply.

Hi @kata7,

Thank you for reporting this issue.

We have reproduced this bug in version 0.5.8.166.

In the current version, please click the “A” button on the left side panel to display all minions in the same scene as a temporary fix.

We will address this issue in the next version.

Hi @quantumodo,

Thanks for reaching out! I looked into the Marvelcdb API, and it seems there isn’t a way to access unpublished decks through it.

If anyone else has found a method to get unpublished decks, please share your insights, and we’ll consider implementing them.

Hi @kata7,

Is your “30019” card attached to a player side scheme? If so, this bug is a duplicate of this report.

Additionally, please avoid pasting parts of the save JSON file in your post, as the file only works when we can read all of its content.

In most cases, sharing the console log won’t help us identify the issue unless there is a crash.

If you would like to share your save file, please refer to the “How to get the dump file” section in this link: How to Report a Bug.

Thank you for your understanding!

Hi @kata7,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have reproduced the bug in version v0.5.8.166 and are currently working on a fix. We appreciate your patience as we resolve this issue.

Hi @Masn1999,

Thank you for your reply! I appreciate your insights on this matter.

We have updated the ability type of “30019” to a Response and tested it in the same situation, but we found that the threats on the main scheme could still not be removed.

Upon checking, we discovered that the event “When any amount of threat is removed from the attached scheme” triggers before “After the attached scheme is defeated.” And the attached scheme only leaves play during the latter event.

We also updated the timing to “When the attached scheme is defeated” and retested the card, but we still could not remove threats, as the attached scheme remains in play until the event “After the attached scheme is defeated” occurs.

Based on these findings, I believe we should maintain the original logic: “30019” cannot remove threats when it is attached to a crisis side scheme.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your thoughts.

Hi @quantumodo,

Thank you so much for your kind words about the app! We’re thrilled to hear that you’re enjoying it.

I appreciate you reporting the bug regarding card “03015” in version 0.5.8.166. You’re correct that Avengers Assemble should only be played once per round, and we will address this issue in the next version.

Thanks again for your support, and please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any more feedback or encounter any other issues!

Hi @quantumodo,

Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention regarding card “06032” in version 0.5.8.166.

The reason you couldn’t play this card is due to a script error that we have identified. I’m happy to inform you that we have already fixed this issue in our development branch, and it will be included in the next update.

Thank you for your patience, and please feel free to reach out if you have any more questions or encounter any other issues!

Hi @kata7,

Thank you for your message. On our end, the forced interruption of Deadpool hero “44001a” is working well in version 0.5.8.166. To assist you further, could you please provide more details about the issue you are experiencing?

Specifically, it would be helpful to know:

• What you expected to happen and what actually occurred.
• What cards are currently in play?
• Any specific scenarios or actions that lead to the problem.

Additionally, if you could send us a save file, that would be very useful. You can do this by clicking “QSave” in the bottom right corner and sending us the save_0.json file.

Looking forward to your response!

Hi @kata7,

We have reviewed your hero JSON file. The game crashes because the card “44044” has not been implemented in the current version (v0.5.8.166).

We have added the implementation of this card to our schedule. For the current version, please use other cards instead.

Thank you!

---

For more information:

1. In the deck editor, “no image” not only indicates a missing image but also means that this card has not been implemented.

2. The last line in the console should display something like:

   AssertionError: name_or_id=‘44044’

   This also indicates that this card has not been implemented.

Hi @makstfate,

Thank you for sharing your crash file for game version 0.5.8.166. We have identified that the crash is caused by card “40006.” We will address this issue in the next version.

Hi everyone,

I have a question about the Crisis Icon mechanic.

The Crisis Icon reads:

While at least one crisis icon is in play, threat cannot be removed from the main scheme by any player.

Let’s say “01108” (which has a Crisis Icon) is in play, and we play “30019” and attach it to “01108”. If we then use our hero’s basic THW to remove the last threat on “01108,” we reach a point where we can trigger “30019”’s effect.

“30019” reads:

Discard this card -> remove an equal amount of threat from a different scheme.

However, the threat on the main scheme cannot be removed by “30019”’s effect because, when we trigger “30019,” “01108” is still in play, and the Crisis Icon on it is still active, blocking threat removal from the main scheme.

We are unsure if this processing is correct, as we can’t find any rules or FAQs that address this situation. If anyone has insights or can point us to relevant rules or FAQs, we would greatly appreciate it!

Hi @kata7,

Thank you for reporting the bug regarding card “44001a” in version 0.5.8.166.

Unfortunately, we are unable to reproduce this issue on our end. When we start the game using the hero “44001a,” it plays normally.

Could you please provide more information about your situation? Specifically, it would be helpful to know which cards are in your deck, whether you received an error message, and if so, what it said. Additionally, if you could provide a save file, that would greatly assist us in resolving this issue.

Thank you!

Hi @makstfate,

Thank you for reporting the bug related to card “40079” in version 0.5.8.166.

The issue with your hero and allies not being able to defend is due to an error in the “40079” script. We will address this in the next version.

Thank you for your understanding!

Hi @Masn1999,

Thank you for reporting the issue with card “01100.” We have successfully reproduced the problem using your save file.

Here’s an explanation of why this occurred:

The card “01100” states:

Spend [physical] [physical] [physical] resources -> discard this card

In your current setup, it appears you do not have any cards that can generate enough physical (red) resources to pay this cost.

1. All of your hard cards can only generate yellow resources.
2. While there are four cards that can trigger “Sync Ratio,” only “31010” and “31002b” can generate green resources. “31011” generates blue resources, and “31013” generates yellow resources. Unfortunately, none of these cards can generate red resources.

If you have any further questions or need additional assistance, feel free to ask!

Hi @MichaelDSalzman,

Thank you for sharing your crash file.

This crash occurs because of card “48002.” When there are no legal targets to which a “Bamf!” can be attached, and you still search for a “Bamf!” using this card’s effect, the newly searched “Bamf!” will be stacked in the processing area, which causes the game to crash.

We will address this issue in the next version.

Thank you for your understanding!

Hi @Skiptron,

Thank you for sharing your crash file.

The crash is caused by card “40013.” In the current version, it will crash when you attempt to put a player-side scheme into play.

We will address this issue in the next version.

Thank you for your understanding!

Hi @MichaelDSalzman,

Thank you for reporting the issue with card “48006.” We have successfully reproduced the bug using your save file.

This issue is caused by a recent update to the script, and we overlooked adding the “Nightcrawler” pack cards into the unit tests, which is why we did not catch this bug before the release. If you would like to continue playing with this hero, you can try the previous version. We will address this issue in the next update.

Thank you for your understanding!

Hi @Average4PlayersGame,

Thank you for reporting the issue with card “08003”. This bug is caused by an error in the script, and we will address it in the next version.

We appreciate your feedback!