There's a big question in any kind of set built around a bunch of named characters. Do you make all the creature cards that correspond to a named character legendary?
With the new Legend rule it matters a bit less, because either way it'll be possible to have, say, Kallen Kouzuki on both sides of the battlefield. Would it be stranger to be permitted to have two or three of her on the same side of the battlefield? Yeah, probably.
But there's another issue. Several characters in the series have multiple identities, most obviously Lelouch's alter ego Zero. Should I have different cards for "Lelouch vi Britannia" and "Zero"? (And perhaps even a third one for "Lelouch Lamperouge"?) That'd allow similar in-game strangeness, but of the kind that's already possible if you have Balthor the Stout and Balthor the Defiled both in play, or Kamahl, Pit Fighter and Kamahl, Fist of Krosa (or Venser, Shaper Savant and Venser, the Sojourner, which is actually a great combo).
I think for the sake of gameplay (and tidier type lines), I should leave the type "Legendary" off all the named characters in this set (there'll be a lot).
Still not decided on the issue of whether alter egos get multiple cards in the set though.
You should absolutely include Legendary in the typeline of named characters. That's exactly what the type is for. Seeing named characters without the Legendary supertype is jarring. How you'll handle characters with multiple personas is up to you, but I would just ignore the wonky flavor and make a card for each one.
Thing is, I'm planning on having commons for named characters. E.g. the current design of Holy Sword Asahina. I don't know what it'd do to gameplay to have Legends at common.
Hmm, wasn't there one of the Masters Editions when they had a bunch of the Legends legends at common? searches Aha, yes, Masters Edition III had ten legends at common - Ramirez DePietro, Sivitri Scarzam, and the rest of their two cycles. Although ISTR hearing that they were actually half as common as the other commons.
Hmm... Googling around, it's hard to tell what people thought of the drafting experience of ME3. This guy certainly enjoyed it. So... okay, maybe it would be viable to have every creature in a set be Legendary. It's not like this set is actually going to be drafted hundreds of times.
You can make nonlegendary creature cards that obviously refer to a specific character from a story, but don't bear the character's name. For example, in a Game of Thrones set, a nonlegendary creature named "Master of Coin" with appropriate art would obviously refer to Littlefinger. Or in a Harry Potter set, "Ostracized Werewolf" represents Lupin. Basically, names that are generic enough to be nonlegendary, but still showcase a character.
Oho. Yes, good idea. I could also use that approach to have multiple cards communicating multiple facets of some of the more complex characters like Lelouch. Thanks for the suggestion!
There's a big question in any kind of set built around a bunch of named characters. Do you make all the creature cards that correspond to a named character legendary?
With the new Legend rule it matters a bit less, because either way it'll be possible to have, say, Kallen Kouzuki on both sides of the battlefield. Would it be stranger to be permitted to have two or three of her on the same side of the battlefield? Yeah, probably.
But there's another issue. Several characters in the series have multiple identities, most obviously Lelouch's alter ego Zero. Should I have different cards for "Lelouch vi Britannia" and "Zero"? (And perhaps even a third one for "Lelouch Lamperouge"?) That'd allow similar in-game strangeness, but of the kind that's already possible if you have Balthor the Stout and Balthor the Defiled both in play, or Kamahl, Pit Fighter and Kamahl, Fist of Krosa (or Venser, Shaper Savant and Venser, the Sojourner, which is actually a great combo).
I think for the sake of gameplay (and tidier type lines), I should leave the type "Legendary" off all the named characters in this set (there'll be a lot).
Still not decided on the issue of whether alter egos get multiple cards in the set though.
Character affiliations, by colour.
White
Blue
Black
Red
Green
Undecided
You should absolutely include Legendary in the typeline of named characters. That's exactly what the type is for. Seeing named characters without the Legendary supertype is jarring. How you'll handle characters with multiple personas is up to you, but I would just ignore the wonky flavor and make a card for each one.
Thing is, I'm planning on having commons for named characters. E.g. the current design of Holy Sword Asahina. I don't know what it'd do to gameplay to have Legends at common.
Hmm, wasn't there one of the Masters Editions when they had a bunch of the Legends legends at common? searches Aha, yes, Masters Edition III had ten legends at common - Ramirez DePietro, Sivitri Scarzam, and the rest of their two cycles. Although ISTR hearing that they were actually half as common as the other commons.
Hmm... Googling around, it's hard to tell what people thought of the drafting experience of ME3. This guy certainly enjoyed it. So... okay, maybe it would be viable to have every creature in a set be Legendary. It's not like this set is actually going to be drafted hundreds of times.
You can make nonlegendary creature cards that obviously refer to a specific character from a story, but don't bear the character's name. For example, in a Game of Thrones set, a nonlegendary creature named "Master of Coin" with appropriate art would obviously refer to Littlefinger. Or in a Harry Potter set, "Ostracized Werewolf" represents Lupin. Basically, names that are generic enough to be nonlegendary, but still showcase a character.
Oho. Yes, good idea. I could also use that approach to have multiple cards communicating multiple facets of some of the more complex characters like Lelouch. Thanks for the suggestion!
Yeah, I like that idea a lot.