Page 2 of 4
Re: Rise of the Eldrazi (33/94/248) PREVIEW Update
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:43 pm
by Dr.Solomat
Updated to Version 2
Re: Rise of the Eldrazi (33/94/248) PREVIEW Update
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:17 pm
by KF1
Dr.Solomat wrote:Updated to Version 2
Thank you Dr.Solomat
I was looking at the _dat file for ROE and found this minor typographical error,"cretaure," in Brimstone Mage.
[card]
name=Brimstone Mage
auto={3}{R}:counter(0/0,1,Level Up) asSorcery
auto=this(counter{0/0.1.Level Up}) 0/1
auto=this(counter{0/0.1.Level Up}) {T}:damage:1 target(cretaure,player)
auto=this(counter{0/0.3.Level Up}) 0/1
auto=this(counter{0/0.3.Level Up}) {T}:damage:3 target(cretaure,player)
text=Level up {3}{R} -- [Level 1-2] {T}: Brimstone Mage deals 1 damage to target creature or player. [2/3] -- [Level 3+] {T}: Brimstone Mage deals 3 damage to target creature or player. [2/4
mana={2}{R}
type=Creature
subtype=Human Shaman
power=2
toughness=2
[/card]
I'm guessing for coding the correct word is "creature". This could be coding-speak to me, was hoping to get this clarified as I learn more about how the program code works.
Thank you again for what you have been able to do with ROE.
KF1
Re: Rise of the Eldrazi (33/94/248) PREVIEW Update
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:47 pm
by Dr.Solomat
KF1 wrote:Dr.Solomat wrote:Updated to Version 2
Thank you Dr.Solomat
I was looking at the _dat file for ROE and found this minor typographical error,"cretaure," in Brimstone Mage.
[card]
name=Brimstone Mage
auto={3}{R}:counter(0/0,1,Level Up) asSorcery
auto=this(counter{0/0.1.Level Up}) 0/1
auto=this(counter{0/0.1.Level Up}) {T}:damage:1 target(cretaure,player)
auto=this(counter{0/0.3.Level Up}) 0/1
auto=this(counter{0/0.3.Level Up}) {T}:damage:3 target(cretaure,player)
text=Level up {3}{R} -- [Level 1-2] {T}: Brimstone Mage deals 1 damage to target creature or player. [2/3] -- [Level 3+] {T}: Brimstone Mage deals 3 damage to target creature or player. [2/4
mana={2}{R}
type=Creature
subtype=Human Shaman
power=2
toughness=2
[/card]
I'm guessing for coding the correct word is "creature". This could be coding-speak to me, was hoping to get this clarified as I learn more about how the program code works.
Thank you again for what you have been able to do with ROE.
KF1
thx, fixed!
Re: Rise of the Eldrazi (42/100/248) PREVIEW Update
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:16 pm
by Dr.Solomat
updated to Version 3
Re: Rise of the Eldrazi (42/100/248) PREVIEW Update 08.04.2010
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:42 pm
by kaioshin
Nice! It's a shame, though, that alot of cool new cards cannot be done right now
.
Take this for example:
Why did it have to be the
second creature!?! I hate Wizards. They do cards that can't be done in Wagic purposely.
Anyway, I'm happy that the great Rage Nimbus could be added. It's a small solace.
Re: Rise of the Eldrazi (57/135/248) PREVIEW Update 10.04.2010
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:55 am
by Dr.Solomat
updated to Version 4
Re: Rise of the Eldrazi (57/135/248) PREVIEW Update 10.04.2010
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:25 pm
by frankho
Wall of omens is 1W rather than 1U in that txt.
Re: Rise of the Eldrazi (57/135/248) PREVIEW Update 10.04.2010
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:00 pm
by KF1
Is the double && in this card a typo or a coding syntax?
name=Snaproot
abilities=trample
auto={0}:tap target(creature[-tapped]|myBattlefield) && 1/1 all(this)
Any chance we could get a copy of the ROTE set with cards that you are using?
Thanks again for giving us a jump on the ROTE set.
Keep up the great work!
Re: Rise of the Eldrazi (57/135/248) PREVIEW Update 10.04.2010
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:21 pm
by Dr.Solomat
KF1 wrote:Is the double && in this card a typo or a coding syntax?
It is a coding syntax!
KF1 wrote:
name=Snaproot
abilities=trample
auto={0}:tap target(creature[-tapped]|myBattlefield) && 1/1 all(this)
Any chance we could get a copy of the ROTE set with cards that you are using?
Thanks again for giving us a jump on the ROTE set.
Keep up the great work!
There is an attachment at the end of the first post. It is the card_dat for ROTE.
Re: Rise of the Eldrazi (57/135/248) PREVIEW Update 10.04.2010
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:52 pm
by KF1
Dr.Solomat wrote:It is a coding syntax!
As a non-programmer, I really didn't know what it was. This is all new to me. Message boards/e-mails do a poor job expressing tone of voice. I in no way was trying to be disrespectful of you or your hard work.
Thank you for the clarification.