TOPIC: Question about Legendary Transmutes and Reprints

Matthew Hayward wrote: I think Jedi is looking for TPTB to formally state whether or not any future reprints of URs for recipes will be allowed in the recipe.

The reason for the question is it would be a shame if:

a. People lobbied to reprint UR X with the intention of using it in a transmute recipe.
b. UR X is reprinted, and people buy it with the intention of using it in a transmute recipe.
c. It is discovered that the reprint of UR X is not eligible for the recipe.

This would be a waste of a UR slot, and a regrettable purchase.

For my money, the answer should be 'yes.'

Exactly. I have no stake in this one as I mentioned I have the UR and Rares I need but none to sell. I just feel it is something we should know before asking for any given reprint.

[quote="Brad Mortensen" post=330424
IIRC: The stated purpose of Legendaries was that even players of modest means could take a year or two to make the relic, then spend a few years collecting the ingredients to upgrade it. Almost anyone could make one, given enough time! When all you needed to squirrel away was an extra rare, that was doable.

Then we started adding an extra UR or three to the mix. Suddenly, it’s not so easy. Legendaries have crept out of reach of our modest players.

I never thought it made sense to say a recipe was “timeless” when many of the ingredients were not. Okay, don’t reprint the relics, but just because we have or haven’t reprinted the others bits doesn’t mean it was a conscious decision. Maybe it just happened and we mistook it for a rule.

All of which is to say, I don’t have a problem with reprints of uncommons, rare, or even UR ingredients for legendaries. (Other than my general “no reprints period” stance which is never going to be implemented anyway.) In fact, as we make them more and more expensive, I think we almost have an obligation to. It’s just not reasonable, in my mind, to jump from “save an extra $5 token” to “save a few hundred upfront, or pay out the nose for them later.”

At the very least, modify the old recipes. e.g. allow Carter’s or Gregor’s to make Drake’s.

Very much agree here, it's not so much the saving up as in did i spend all this money this year so i can spend even more saving up next few years. See stuff like Viper Belt being very high by comparison in part because it's needed for a transmute.

I get the middle is an increasingly small and hard target to hit but it's wallop for all but the most dedicated tokenholics it's seems (which obviously are quite common around these forums).


But that’s just me[/quote]

I'm all for reprinting older tokens that players want to use in the game. I've benefitted from this several times myself.

In general, I'm against reprinting if people just want them for transmute ingredients, and would rather see something new printed and the recipe adjusted for those cases.

I realize we have nothing other than gut instinct and anecdote to separate the two though.

Matthew Hayward wrote: I think Jedi is looking for TPTB to formally state whether or not any future reprints of URs for recipes will be allowed in the recipe.

The reason for the question is it would be a shame if:

a. People lobbied to reprint UR X with the intention of using it in a transmute recipe.
b. UR X is reprinted, and people buy it with the intention of using it in a transmute recipe.
c. It is discovered that the reprint of UR X is not eligible for the recipe.

This would be a waste of a UR slot, and a regrettable purchase.

For my money, the answer should be 'yes.'

In general I also think it should be yes. The only hesitation is Ring of Riches and Charm of Good Fortune. I can understand, if they are ever reprinted, that TD might not want the CoA floodgates opened again.

That is a different situation than most Legendary tokens. For other Legendary tokens, you'd need the Relic in addition to the reprinted UR. For the CoA, just reprinting the RoR or CoGF and allowing it in the recipe would allow people to transmute as many as they wanted.

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: I think Jedi is looking for TPTB to formally state whether or not any future reprints of URs for recipes will be allowed in the recipe.

The reason for the question is it would be a shame if:

a. People lobbied to reprint UR X with the intention of using it in a transmute recipe.
b. UR X is reprinted, and people buy it with the intention of using it in a transmute recipe.
c. It is discovered that the reprint of UR X is not eligible for the recipe.

This would be a waste of a UR slot, and a regrettable purchase.

For my money, the answer should be 'yes.'

In general I also think it should be yes. The only hesitation is Ring of Riches and Charm of Good Fortune. I can understand, if they are ever reprinted, that TD might not want the CoA floodgates opened again.

That is a different situation than most Legendary tokens. For other Legendary tokens, you'd need the Relic in addition to the reprinted UR. For the CoA, just reprinting the RoR or CoGF and allowing it in the recipe would allow people to transmute as many as they wanted.

if folks want to buy UR’s why would TD care? how is that different than when aotf was printed? granted they would need to make the reprints 1 pt like aotf.

I feel like we all agree that if RoR or CoGF are ever reprinted, they should be worth less than their original counterparts in a CoA recipe.

I do think this would cause a LOT of confusion for newer players.

Maybe we make new TEs with a new CoA recipe, if we really want there to be one.

Also, I think if we are reprinting URs, they should be useable in the old legendary recipes, though clarification would be nice.

Finally, I'm ok with adjusting old legendary recipes to update them for new tokens as a replacement, but I'm not 100% sure that's necessary. It feels like Relics are the more limiting factor, at least to me.

Wade Schwendemann wrote: I feel like we all agree that if RoR or CoGF are ever reprinted, they should be worth less than their original counterparts in a CoA recipe.

I do think this would cause a LOT of confusion for newer players.

Just give them new names, and “no stack” restrictions. “Ring of Loot - +3 TC, no RoR or CoA”

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: I think Jedi is looking for TPTB to formally state whether or not any future reprints of URs for recipes will be allowed in the recipe.

The reason for the question is it would be a shame if:

a. People lobbied to reprint UR X with the intention of using it in a transmute recipe.
b. UR X is reprinted, and people buy it with the intention of using it in a transmute recipe.
c. It is discovered that the reprint of UR X is not eligible for the recipe.

This would be a waste of a UR slot, and a regrettable purchase.

For my money, the answer should be 'yes.'

In general I also think it should be yes. The only hesitation is Ring of Riches and Charm of Good Fortune. I can understand, if they are ever reprinted, that TD might not want the CoA floodgates opened again.

That is a different situation than most Legendary tokens. For other Legendary tokens, you'd need the Relic in addition to the reprinted UR. For the CoA, just reprinting the RoR or CoGF and allowing it in the recipe would allow people to transmute as many as they wanted.

if folks want to buy UR’s why would TD care? how is that different than when aotf was printed? granted they would need to make the reprints 1 pt like aotf.

I suspect TD underestimated both how many CoA would be made and how much they would be passed around. It's possible TD may not want to open that CoA floodgate again. I don't know one way or the other, but I could understand if they didn't.

HoP and AoTF are officially never going to get reprinted, but isn't there some ruling that relics will never be printed again as well?

Arnold wrote: HoP and AoTF are officially never going to get reprinted, but isn't there some ruling that relics will never be printed again as well?

Here are Jeff's thoughts on reprinting Relics:

"I have no plans to do a complete reprint of any Relic, but we might eventually get around to making something that is sort of like an old one...so instead of a Ring that is +4 to saves, it might be +2 saves and +6 hit points.

Thanks for your input on all this. "

From Post #92 on this thread:

truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=570&id=245369&start=84#286216

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: I feel like we all agree that if RoR or CoGF are ever reprinted, they should be worth less than their original counterparts in a CoA recipe.

I do think this would cause a LOT of confusion for newer players.

Just give them new names, and “no stack” restrictions. “Ring of Loot - +3 TC, no RoR or CoA”

It wouldnt even need to mention CoA, since that gives the effect of RoR. In fact, instead of the new token giving +3 treasure with equip limitatiins, just have it count as RoR when equipped. Then everything is handled by the 'no duplicates' rule.

Mike Steele wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: I think Jedi is looking for TPTB to formally state whether or not any future reprints of URs for recipes will be allowed in the recipe.

The reason for the question is it would be a shame if:

a. People lobbied to reprint UR X with the intention of using it in a transmute recipe.
b. UR X is reprinted, and people buy it with the intention of using it in a transmute recipe.
c. It is discovered that the reprint of UR X is not eligible for the recipe.

This would be a waste of a UR slot, and a regrettable purchase.

For my money, the answer should be 'yes.'

In general I also think it should be yes. The only hesitation is Ring of Riches and Charm of Good Fortune. I can understand, if they are ever reprinted, that TD might not want the CoA floodgates opened again.

That is a different situation than most Legendary tokens. For other Legendary tokens, you'd need the Relic in addition to the reprinted UR. For the CoA, just reprinting the RoR or CoGF and allowing it in the recipe would allow people to transmute as many as they wanted.

if folks want to buy UR’s why would TD care? how is that different than when aotf was printed? granted they would need to make the reprints 1 pt like aotf.

I suspect TD underestimated both how many CoA would be made and how much they would be passed around. It's possible TD may not want to open that CoA floodgate again. I don't know one way or the other, but I could understand if they didn't.

Allowing more CoA again would have a much smaller impact than a new treasure legendary.