Are Uncommon Legendary Creatures the New Normal?
General forum
Posted on Jan. 20, 2020, 5:39 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
There have now been three sets in recent years (two of which consecutive) with uncommon legendary creatures (Dominaria, Throne of Eldraine, and Theros: Beyond Death); prior to this, the last time that there had been uncommon legendary creatures was the Kamigawa block, back in 2004 and 2005 (wow! Has it really been that since the Kamigawa block was released? I really feel old, now!).
I severely dislike this trend, and I really hope that it is not the new normal, because having legendary creatures at any rarity below rare makes them feel less special from a flavor perspective and less powerful from a mechanical perspective. Hopefully, this is a rare occurrence, because those set placed an emphasis on legendary creatures, and the next set shall have legendary creatures only as rares or mythic rares.
What does everyone else say about this? Are uncommon legendary creatures the new normal?
DemonDragonJ says... #3
Caerwyn, your comment about Dominaria raises an interesting question: why should the newer generations be less impressive than were the older generations? Would it not be better storytelling for the newer generations to be more impressive?
January 20, 2020 9:48 p.m.
I agree with Caerwyn, although I feel uncommon legendaries should be part of a true hierarchy, always the uncommon reporting to a greater power, like the Syrs and the royals, or Mowu and Jiang.
January 20, 2020 9:51 p.m.
Thus far I've pretty much liked the design of uncommon legendaries for being interesting but not pushed to a Rare or Mythic power level. Also, while they've been making new uncommon legendary creatures a thing since Dominaria (Amonkhet had the Monuments at uncommon), Masters sets had also started downshifting old legendary creatures to uncommon too.
It's a shame that they so rarely integrated the writing team with the card creating team, since uncommon legendaries would have been a great way to include the minor characters. Like imagine Ixalan or Rivals of Ixalan had Breeches, Vraska's Gunner.
January 20, 2020 10:28 p.m.
Our Dominaria uncommon legends were mostly unproven children just starting their journeys - they have not earned the right to be on the same level as their ancestors yet.
Which brings me to another point I had not previously considered - starting them at uncommon has the added advantage of letting characters grow into rares in future sets.
Edit: Greek mythology disagrees that it’s better storytelling to make the younger surpass the older. A good part of the character motivation in the Iliad comes from younger generations who have no chance of living up to the reputation of fathers with less-diluted divine blood.
January 20, 2020 10:35 p.m. Edited.
King_Ramses says... #7
Also, it is great for Pauper EDH people. I know the rule as it stands is any uncommon creature could be your commander.. but, this could allow someone with a pauper edh deck to play at a normal table. I have had people reject a pauper edh deck that did not have a legendary commander believe it or not.
January 21, 2020 12:22 p.m.
Also to fully expose my own biases, I've been working on a Peasant/Artisan Cube focusing on Legendary/Historic-matters themes. So the more Uncommon Legendaries with cool designs that allow me to create themes instead of just a pile of weird legends, I'm down for it.
Caerwyn says... #2
I like this trend - it allows Wizards to have a hierarchy in its legendaries.
For each example:
Dominaria’s uncommon show that these descendants are less impressive than their Rare legendary ancestors.
Eldraine allows them to have lords standing above knights.
Theros has gods standing above their demigods.
From a game design stance, uncommon legendaries are a good addition to limited. It’s reasonably likely to get two of the same legend, which can be an interesting deckbuilding consideration.
January 20, 2020 6:58 p.m.