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

Enygma6

Not easy trying to maintain balance and integrate long neglected mechanics into something like this.  
The one idea that popped into my head was “Legendary creatures and supports do not reinforce. If a Legendary creature is on the battlefield, that card in hand gains ‘cycling 6: explore 3’.  If a Legendary support is on the battlefield, that card in hand gains: ‘cycling 4: add 2 shields.’”  
  
Keeps to the old MtG idea of no duplication, but gives the card something useful to do if you don’t want to hold it to replace one that’s likely to be destroyed next turn.  
There would definitely need to be a lot of balance fine tuning for existing cards to do anything like this.

I’m not a fan of the idea of limiting the number of Legendary cards in the deck construction, but I wouldn’t mind it being a part of specific event constraints (‘cast 3 or fewer Legendary cards’, etc).
 
Whatever the final mechanic ends up being: Please do a very thorough play testing before rolling it out.

ElfNeedsFood

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!

Shecky

Actually, I like the idea of A and C.   Only 1 of each category in the deck and if you draw one already on the board, exile and replace it in your hand.

NinjaE

Let's not visit this at all.

MTG_Mage

Option A and C are terrible, and will cause lots of problems. 

Option A restricts players to only 1 legendary creature and that allows for much less cards to be used since they cannot use two of their good pulls in the same deck which will force only the few best to be in every deck and many cards to be unused and appriciated. It also directly opposes the mechanic being introduced in Dominaria which allows for legendary spells only to be cast if a legendary creature or permantent is in play. 

Option C is like cycling and will be abusable by players and not the AI.

Option B is ok

but it would be simpler and easier to just allow add the legendary sub-type.
Plus it saves a lot of extra programming for the devs.

Legendary cards should gain the sub-type, and will just not cast and remain in hand at full mana if one is already in play on your side (just like when a spell has no target).

This will weaken older superpowerful legendary cards, and you can give other problematically powerful cards legendary to nerf them (such as Gaea's revenge and Omniscience)

Shecky

MTG_Mage said:

Option C is like cycling and will be abusable by players and not the AI.

I assumed the exile would be automatic and would work the same for both player and AI.  It's not optional.  It could be labeled a different process, so it wouldn't trigger any cards, thus removing the cycle concern.  If so, for each legendary card, it would effectively reduce the size of your deck any time a Legendary card is cast, making it more likely you get the other cards you want, but that should be the only benefit of the exile process.

TomB

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...lol

I guess that means boring is better after all...

wereotter

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...lol

I guess that means boring is better after all...

Option C doesn’t draw you a new card to replace the old one, as I understand it. So it’s not as abusable as cycling. 

NinjaE

Is anyone actually asking for this? Why work on "problems" literally no one wants solved?

Kinesia

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.)

NinjaE

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.)

Gotcha. Makes sense.

ZW2007-

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.

Kinesia

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.

That's why I'm saying "add the keyword but NO extra rules", so you can still have things together, but when the Dominaria comes out with a spell that says "Kill target Legendary Creature" it would be REALLY annoying if that didn't work on Olivia and Ulrich. But from the other direction Olivia and Ulrich should enable you to play the Legendary Spells that only work when you have a a legendary out.

Mburn7

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

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).

Mburn7

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.

khurram

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

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

FindingHeart8

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.

I was thinking of the special event with unique legendary rules would be mtgpqs own version of a commander game.  Given the significant popularity of commander in the card mtg game, it wouldn't be a bad move from a strategic marketing perspective to create a version of edh via mtgpq (and the easiest way they could do that given the current formatting of the game is via a new event)

wereotter

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

Most legendary creatures in this game are already more powerful than non-legendary counterparts at their same rarity and mana cost. Look at comparisons like Locust God or Angel of Condemnation, Olivia or Mirrorwing Dragon, Ulrich or Tree of Perdition, Ayli or Barrage Tyrant....

That's not to say there aren't exceptions, but it seems the general rule is the legendary is more powerful.