TomB said: 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...
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".
MTG_Mage said: Option C is like cycling and will be abusable by players and not the AI.
ElfNeedsFood said: TomB said: 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... A problem I thought of with this - if your entire deck is composed of Legendary Cards, then you got one of each into play, you could exile your entire library!
TomB said: ElfNeedsFood said: TomB said: 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... A problem I thought of with this - if your entire deck is composed of Legendary Cards, then you got one of each into play, you could exile your entire library! I have to admit I didn't think about it that way. Talk about your opponent having an endlessly looping deck that just goes on and on and on...lolI guess that means boring is better after all...
Is anyone actually asking for this? Why work on "problems" literally no one wants solved?
NinjaE said: Is anyone actually asking for this? Why work on "problems" literally no one wants solved?
Kinesia said: NinjaE said: Is anyone actually asking for this? Why work on "problems" literally no one wants solved? Because the next set if _full_ of Legendary cards and spells that you can't cast without a Legendary creature in play. So we actually _need_ it solved if we want the next set at ALL. It's not optional, it's just nice of them to let us in the conversation.(And not adding Legendary to older cards, just the new ones, that would end up being very annoying too.)
ZW2007- said: Just indicating Legendary on cards is not the same as adding crazy new stipulations. If they retroactively add "Legendary" to all the old cards, and then restrict decks so they can only have one Legendary card in a deck, that will ruin a lot of people's decks. For example, there are 33 Legendary cards in IXL and RIX combined (including Masterpieces). Most of those are the best cards in those sets. Imagine being limited to only one of the good dinosaurs, or supports, or vampires... There are 22 Legendary cards in Amonkhet block and only 8 in Origins. That is a lot of cards that you wouldn't be able to use. If, on the other hand, they didn't add Legendary to these old cards then they wouldn't work with whatever whacky ideas they cook up for the Dominaria cards that depend on having Legendary cards.That said, I choose NOT A. Don't really care for B or C either way.
Mburn7 said: Just had another idea, what if Legendary just meant you cannot cast the card if there is another copy of it on the field? No special abilities, just make the card sit in your hand fully charged until the one on the field gets destroyed.This is probably the closest to paper we could get, and it wouldn't be too much of a nerf anyway (except for Deploy, it would probably mess with that). You could even give the legendaries a slight buff to make up for the restriction
FindingHeart8 said: Mburn7 said: Just had another idea, what if Legendary just meant you cannot cast the card if there is another copy of it on the field? No special abilities, just make the card sit in your hand fully charged until the one on the field gets destroyed.This is probably the closest to paper we could get, and it wouldn't be too much of a nerf anyway (except for Deploy, it would probably mess with that). You could even give the legendaries a slight buff to make up for the restriction Interesting idea, and I appreciate your drive to make it similar to the card game, but I would dread this actually happening.Many of the purchasable mythics in the past would also be qualified as legendary now. Imagine how many of these players would feel, waking up to play mtgpq one day and suddenly realizing that their purchased legendary creatures do not reinforce. That's not the rules of the game that we learned to play, nor was that conveyed to purchasers that the items at the time of purchase were to eventually be significantly reduced in effectiveness. Many could even perceive it as a form of scam, and (if nothing else) it would significantly reduce future purchases of mythics if they're also legendary.Any new rules added to legendarily would have significant gameplay-altering effects throughout all standard and legacy play.If Octagon wants to add this new element to the game and not infuriate a huge portion of their player-base, I highly recommend:1) For general gameplay: Make it a flavor for subtype only, and have no effect on general gameplay, with the exception of being vulnerable to specific cards that target legendary creatures that I'm sure will be released in the future (ex: destroy target legendary creature, all legendaries you control get +X/+X, etc).2) To appease the pro-legendary audience: Add a specific event where alternate rules to legendary creatures apply (ex: legendary creatures don't reinforce, etc).
khurram said: Mburn7 said: Just had another idea, what if Legendary just meant you cannot cast the card if there is another copy of it on the field? No special abilities, just make the card sit in your hand fully charged until the one on the field gets destroyed.This is probably the closest to paper we could get, and it wouldn't be too much of a nerf anyway (except for Deploy, it would probably mess with that). You could even give the legendaries a slight buff to make up for the restriction So legendary creatures would have a downside in that they cant be reinforced, while non-legendary creatures can. Sounds absolutely terrible. No thanks.
Mburn7 said: FindingHeart8 said: Mburn7 said: Just had another idea, what if Legendary just meant you cannot cast the card if there is another copy of it on the field? No special abilities, just make the card sit in your hand fully charged until the one on the field gets destroyed.This is probably the closest to paper we could get, and it wouldn't be too much of a nerf anyway (except for Deploy, it would probably mess with that). You could even give the legendaries a slight buff to make up for the restriction Interesting idea, and I appreciate your drive to make it similar to the card game, but I would dread this actually happening.Many of the purchasable mythics in the past would also be qualified as legendary now. Imagine how many of these players would feel, waking up to play mtgpq one day and suddenly realizing that their purchased legendary creatures do not reinforce. That's not the rules of the game that we learned to play, nor was that conveyed to purchasers that the items at the time of purchase were to eventually be significantly reduced in effectiveness. Many could even perceive it as a form of scam, and (if nothing else) it would significantly reduce future purchases of mythics if they're also legendary.Any new rules added to legendarily would have significant gameplay-altering effects throughout all standard and legacy play.If Octagon wants to add this new element to the game and not infuriate a huge portion of their player-base, I highly recommend:1) For general gameplay: Make it a flavor for subtype only, and have no effect on general gameplay, with the exception of being vulnerable to specific cards that target legendary creatures that I'm sure will be released in the future (ex: destroy target legendary creature, all legendaries you control get +X/+X, etc).2) To appease the pro-legendary audience: Add a specific event where alternate rules to legendary creatures apply (ex: legendary creatures don't reinforce, etc). I don't think it would be a huge issue outside of complaining (I mean, if you purchased Olivia, for example, you've had well over a year to use and abuse her, now with standard being what it is it's not a huge deal), but I agree its far from ideal.I don't think having special legendary rules for a specific event is a good idea either, though. Whatever they decide to do should be consistent. If you want to give it special rules, give it special rules and let the chips fall where they may. If you just leave it a subtype, then do that. Don't try to mix and match, it'll get way too complicated and much easier to bug out.
Mburn7 said: khurram said: Mburn7 said: Just had another idea, what if Legendary just meant you cannot cast the card if there is another copy of it on the field? No special abilities, just make the card sit in your hand fully charged until the one on the field gets destroyed.This is probably the closest to paper we could get, and it wouldn't be too much of a nerf anyway (except for Deploy, it would probably mess with that). You could even give the legendaries a slight buff to make up for the restriction So legendary creatures would have a downside in that they cant be reinforced, while non-legendary creatures can. Sounds absolutely terrible. No thanks. The downside is to counter the fact that legendaries are insanely powerful (and could even receive an additional buff if this is implemented).I know its not an ideal solution (none are), but its the closest to paper rules we could get, and it should be fairly simple to implement