Eh, this to me feels like a poster boy of how to NOT use that mechanic. You just kinda slapped it in there. IMO it should rather directly reference a notable character and/or have some kind of state switch if it's legendary (preferably something that just doesn't make it strictly better).

I think it's also appropriate if you link in the mechanics page to the mechanic's original creator.

2/1 with haste for is super-aggressive but considering cards like Valley Dasher and Rakdos Shred-Freak I guess it's within acceptable parameters for a common card.

The idea of the mechanic was to create the feel of a world in turmoil - with the chaos of battle, any average soldier who happens to be in the right place at the right time could become legendary through a single deed. You're right, though, I should have linked to the mechanic's creator.

Hmmm, that sounds much more like the flavor of renown. I get the idea, but there isn't any deed happening here...

There's not usually a specific deed with renown either.

Huh. That wasn't my takeaway when looking at the mechanic either. When I read this card, my first thought was the Conservation of Ninjitsu.

I think part of the confusion is that this starts as a Legendary creature, then something is taken away when another creature is added. That tells a very different story then the one you've explained, where something is made special when something is taken away.

Idea: Elevate + "~ has haste as long it's legendary"?

Also, you might want to not have this a common and Osgiliath Recruits (exact same card except with must attack each turn) at uncommon.

Isn't this mechanic just the same as not having legendary; except is counts as legendary for any of the approximately no things that care?

> "There's not usually a specific deed with renown either."

@Samuel: Being able to break through the defenses of the multidimensional wizard who can summon gods to their side, face them in combat, and wound them, sounds like a very clear deed to me.

I'm always afraid to comment when there's so many other people talking, because sometimes it looks like we're ganging up. It's not intentional... we just have a lot of creative and critical thinkers on this website, and a set often only has one designer to 'defend' their ideas.

That being the case, things are bound to look lopsided. So I just wanted to say that I like what you're doing over here Samuel, and I find this set interesting. Also, while Vitenka's point seems valid, I like Elevate from a strictly mechanical perspective. I'd be curious to see how far a set could stretch 'Changeling for Legends'. Kamigawa sure could have used this effect, that's for sure.

I still think Elevate doesn't quite match your top-down description of what it's supposed to represent. But I think it could, depending on what the other cards in the set did.

@jmgariepy: That's a good point, but I don't really want to change the whole structure of the mechanic now on a set that I have basically finished to an extent.

@Circeus: That is very true. Will fix.

@Vitenka: Yes, except that there are plenty of cards in this set that do care, so while it won't matter in eternal formats, it matters for limited (and maybe even a hypothetical standard environment). See: Aura of Light, Gildor's Blessing, Hero of Osgiliath (cares about itself being legendary), Hero's Grandeur, Decree of Inaction, Elrond's Research, Force of Destiny, Tale of Ages, Spiteful Murder, Barrow Hoard, Call to Battle, Fateful Leap, Strengthened Blows, Blessing of the Elf-Rings, Council of Elrond, Bells of Rivendell, the dual land cycle, and Imladris, the Hidden Valley.

@Tahazzar: If you're talking about the player=planeswalker thing, I think you're reading too much into that advertising gimmick. Wizards has tried to shy away from the flavor implications of players being planeswalkers.

@jmgariepy (2): No problem, I like getting feedback. You're right about the mechanic not matching the description, but I don't really want to change that now simply because it would mean reworking like 10% of the finished set.