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.
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.
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".
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)
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