Community Feedback - Legendary Cards (3/16/18)

Nalthazar

I strongly dislike the possibility of having further deckbuilding restrictions apart from what each planeswalker already lets you put into your deck. If you could only have one Legendary of each type of card in your deck, it would take some of the fun out of playing cards that were designed to be played together that are currently in the card pool. Additionally, with so many cards in Dominara being Legendary, it would cause deckbuilding with the upcoming set to become more of a chore and less fun. I don't think that there really needs to be anything uniquely different about something being Legendary in PQ apart from how it might interact with upcoming mechanics.

IM_CARLOS

You must be joking? Legendary status in MTG is a restriction, not a boost, because a lot of Legendaries are very powerful and have unique effects sometimes.

To give Legends a boost simply make some of them OP.

I have a lot of legends so I can live with every concept, but newer player are even more set back with any of these concepts. 

And beside this, if you make single cards too strong, the game even more relies on luck, not deckbuilding skills or strategies. 

My concept for legendaries would be similar to MTG: Legends can't be reinforced. If opponent cast the same legend, both are destroyed. 

madwren

I assume this is related to Dominaria, which has a lot of f legendary cards, which means we won't be able to actually ignore it.

Concept A  - has a lot of problems

For example, what does one legendary card per deck MEAN? Would we then start with 37-card decks? Would we have 10x4, and then an extra card slot representing the single legendary in the deck? What happens if you build a deck with, say. 10 legendary cards. Would you then only have 10 cards in your entire deck before it regenerates? Wouldn't that potentially make an overly strong deck if they are then buffed?

Concept B – Solid, like this one best

I think reinforcement-based effects are a solid idea, because it fits neatly into existing PQ mechanics. Incrementally higher costs and effects seems easily implemented and fairly logical.

Concept C – Potentially abusable, makes me anxious

With cycling in the state it is, I'm nervous about free effects. Look how useful "drawing a card" is, for example. I think that this is interesting, but the potential for abuse is very high and you'd have to take a careful look at giving us free effects.  Most things that happen for free in this game wind up being broken.

gogol666

I don't like the randomness of B and C. A is the option I would go for if forced to pick one, but I am not a big fan of any of them

wereotter

madwren said:

Concept C – Potentially abusable, makes me anxious

With cycling in the state it is, I'm nervous about free effects. Look how useful "drawing a card" is, for example. I think that this is interesting, but the potential for abuse is very high and you'd have to take a careful look at giving us free effects.  Most things that happen for free in this game wind up being broken.

I think the way C is, you don’t cycle the card. You simply throw the card away from your hand for a boost. That would make it less powerful in the end since you’re not replacing that card. 

Elspeth_Tirel

I very emphatically vote for the "do nothing" approach. Not everything in paper Magic makes it into MtG:PQ, and that's as it should be. I think that many foundational aspects of MtG:PQ's gameplay (the way deck building works, the three creature limit, the concept of reinforcing) mean that there's no good way to translate the legendary rule into this game, so don't. I'll add that I particularly dislike option A, which basically just means that a lot of fun cards can't be played together in the same deck. I don't see much value to restricting our deck building options for no particular reason other than to create a mechanical distinction that hasn't existed before now and has no real need to exist. 

In case this is sounding overly negative, I (and all of us) appreciate that you're asking this question rather than just making a change. So thank you! But in this particular case, I vote for no change to how legendary cards work in MtG:PQ.

Furks

I'm also in the camp of option D- do nothing. Just add the legendary tag to relevant cards and have 'legendary matters' mechanics. It's more interesting to have positive synergies than just to get limitations on current mechanics.

ElfNeedsFood

So the deck restriction should be such that you can't put two "Legendary Jace" cards in the same deck...  If that's what's meant by type, then I'm in for A.  If it's "One legendary spell, one legendary creature, and one legendary support", then that's really awkward.

In paper, situation B results in exile of the new copy.

For C, is that to say "when this card is played, if a copy of this card already exists, exile this card prior to casting and buff in this other way"?

I too like the idea of making the card just "show up less frequently" in the deck mix.  (i.e. the option not shown)

ElfNeedsFood

Actually, another (very simple) mechanic: "When you draw a legendary card and one is already in play, exile this card and draw a new card in its place".

Bil

    I also gave insightful to waffles post not only because it gives a nice review of the legendary creature concept in magic but also because i think the idea of the subtype is easy and eficient.
     Sometimes simplicity may be more reliable than a new mechanic that has nothing to do with the original concept and might bring more power creep ( or even bugs )than real flavor to the game... 
     The fact that some cards depend or interact with legendaries is by itself an added value to legendary cards ... i think They do not need to be buffed just because they are legendary.

ElfNeedsFood

After re-reading Waffle's note, the idea of just adding a "Legendary" type to cards and rolling with it not having a uniqueness requirement at all in the game is probably a fine way to do it too.

Kinesia

I like that they have already added subtypes for lands and things, it's excellent, it's just bugged right now. If they just make legendary a subtype but fix all subtypes to actually work, that is far cleaner and nicer than most other things.

TomB

ElfNeedsFood said:

Actually, another (very simple) mechanic: "When you draw a legendary card and one is already in play, exile this card and draw a new card in its place".

I'm pretty sure this is what they meant by option "C", and I would vote for handling it this way if we're going strictly by the 3 options mentioned in the OP. It's probably the best way to stay as close to the way paper Magic treats legendaries, as it would guarantee it stays Highlander-style - There Can Only Be One - and since these legends would be treated as unique in play they can be made to be more powerful as stand-alones.

On the other hand, if we're trying to keep power creep down, and make all these critters be more generic, then the notion of just adding the sub-type to the cards so the other cards having synergy with legends work with them then that would also be fine, I guess. It sounds a bit more boring though...

andrewvanmarle

Mtg doesn't fit the concept of legendary since in a way almost every card reinforces making them legendary in a way already. It isn't possible to have multiples of a creature (with multiples of their in-game effects) and the same goes for supports.

Don't try to put a square peg in a round hole. 

And especially not by revisiting every old card we have. 

If you want the legendary to mean something  try something that works with the three creature slots instead of limitations on deck building or effects that the size won't use

Increasing the reinforcement price is very counter productive since you already have your eggs in a single proverbial basket. 

Play 3 Olivia's and you pay 63 mana and 3 discards. One destroy or Exile costs 10 mana on average. 

Option B seems best, but only because the other two are really bad. 

I think we need to think outside of the box since paper and PQ don't meld that well all too often. 

What would a legendary creature look like in PQ? 
Really awesome one one hand but maybe it cannot reinforce at all? So more powerful than other cards but it stands alone? 

I'm not sure about it though, but I do know restricting deck building or the chance to draw a card would not be good

Lars

You know, it didn't even occur to me when this thread started that it might significantly alter some old power cards like Deploy the Gatewatch...

Kinesia

I am increasingly thinking that most ideas are too dangerous except for just "add the subtype, don't change anything else".

I liked Elf's idea of automatically exiling it and drawing something else, but it's a drawback if you can't have one in your hand full of mana waiting for your existing one to be killed. (Which we have to do sometimes especially against Bolas.)

Tilwin90

Fortunatelt the way mtgpq works, paper legendary makes little to no sense here, and if you have read MaRo's tumblr you will see he dislikes the idea of legendary cards having a printed restriction on them. In fact, the unique rule could have been implemented independently.

Supports are all legendary by default, while creatures simply stack due to the reinforce rule. Errating most supports to allow non stacking would be overly complicated and cause balance concerns while making legendary creatures not reinforce (but maybe trigger etb effects) although excites me at first glance sounds like a narrow design.  

Therefore I heartily recommend you guys stick to MaRo's opinion regarding legendary cards and in the spirit of dominaria use legendary as a marker just like land became a marker for supports. Maybe errata a few cards along the way, but don't add complicates rules on legendary cards. 

As for the options, A seems limiting for deck designs and that's the opposite of mtg philosophy. 
Option B seems quite disconnected and coming out of nowhere. Simplicity is key and it simply does not evoke legendary. 
Option C is too much like the cycling fiasco that leads to players playing non-matching games. Which is kind of what dredge does in paper magic - as a fringe mechanic it's alright, but not for something that's at a 1 on the storm scale (evergreen)

babar3355

New and interesting mechanics are good for the game guys and gals.  We shouldn't be scared of coming up with something new.  Sure their may be some issues, but that's a lot better than having a stale game.  Just saying.

HomeRn

Tilwin90 said:

Fortunatelt the way mtgpq works, paper legendary makes little to no sense here, and if you have read MaRo's tumblr you will see he dislikes the idea of legendary cards having a printed restriction on them. In fact, the unique rule could have been implemented independently.

Supports are all legendary by default, while creatures simply stack due to the reinforce rule. Errating most supports to allow non stacking would be overly complicated and cause balance concerns while making legendary creatures not reinforce (but maybe trigger etb effects) although excites me at first glance sounds like a narrow design.  

Therefore I heartily recommend you guys stick to MaRo's opinion regarding legendary cards and in the spirit of dominaria use legendary as a marker just like land became a marker for supports. Maybe errata a few cards along the way, but don't add complicates rules on legendary cards. 

As for the options, A seems limiting for deck designs and that's the opposite of mtg philosophy. 
Option B seems quite disconnected and coming out of nowhere. Simplicity is key and it simply does not evoke legendary. 
Option C is too much like the cycling fiasco that leads to players playing non-matching games. Which is kind of what dredge does in paper magic - as a fringe mechanic it's alright, but not for something that's at a 1 on the storm scale (evergreen)

Not exactly true regarding the supports being "legendary."  The five trial supports from Amonket does NOT follow the same reinforcing rule as almost every other support - playing a second copy of a trial support instead creates a second support gem instead of reinforcing the original.  This can result in some very interesting shenanigans with Starfield of Nyx as well as the new City's Blessing mechanic!

As for the legendary mechanic going forward, personally... I need some more information before I give my opinion on it.

Gunmix25

I think a little bit of A and a little bit of C. Only one copy should exist on the battlefield but not in one deck as that would prove to be a bit prohibitive in PQ methinks. But I like the idea of exiling extras from the hand but not in the manner that C suggests (which is that additional copies are in play already).

For simplicity, maybe just allow one legendary of any type on the build. i.e. Creature, then no legendary support or spell. But it cannot be reinforced. The C effect could be that upon exiling a copy in hand would result in X number of loyalty gems being generated on the battlefield. nothing more, nothing less