TOPIC: 2019 Reprinted Token Suggestions

Mike Steele wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

kurtreznor wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: But, if we do, it seems we need to consider a schedule for reprinting all legendary components, not just this one.

That only follows if the reason for the reprint is because it is part of a legendary recipe...which is not the case. Players want it reprinted for other purposes, and it just happens to also be used in a transmute recipe.

I don’t like rules based on mind reading.

“It’s okay to reprint a legendary ingredient provided enough people pinky-swear they don’t want to use it for a legendary recipe.”

For the record, I don’t object to reprinting ingredients in principle. I don’t even object to reactivating relic recipes. If we can reprint URs, then why not relics?

Jeff has famously said that only one token (other than artifacts) will never be reprinted. Just because we’ve never seen a reprinted relic or legendary ingredient doesn’t mean we never will. There is no reason why a reprinted +2 Viper Fang, for instance, could not open the window to create more +3 Fangs. Surely all the justifications for allowing the +2 would apply to the +3. (The +5 is already timeless.)

Actually, he's on record that two URs won't be reprinted now - HoP and AoTF. He also said he wasn't going to reprint Relics, but I don't recall the exact wording so I'm not sure how ironclad that is.

I recall the statement too. That said for legendaries there's nothing stopping Jeff from clarifying an existing recipie to include a year on the tokens specified since the receipe did initially refer to tokens only available in that year anyway.

Picc wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

kurtreznor wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: But, if we do, it seems we need to consider a schedule for reprinting all legendary components, not just this one.

That only follows if the reason for the reprint is because it is part of a legendary recipe...which is not the case. Players want it reprinted for other purposes, and it just happens to also be used in a transmute recipe.

I don’t like rules based on mind reading.

“It’s okay to reprint a legendary ingredient provided enough people pinky-swear they don’t want to use it for a legendary recipe.”

For the record, I don’t object to reprinting ingredients in principle. I don’t even object to reactivating relic recipes. If we can reprint URs, then why not relics?

Jeff has famously said that only one token (other than artifacts) will never be reprinted. Just because we’ve never seen a reprinted relic or legendary ingredient doesn’t mean we never will. There is no reason why a reprinted +2 Viper Fang, for instance, could not open the window to create more +3 Fangs. Surely all the justifications for allowing the +2 would apply to the +3. (The +5 is already timeless.)

Actually, he's on record that two URs won't be reprinted now - HoP and AoTF. He also said he wasn't going to reprint Relics, but I don't recall the exact wording so I'm not sure how ironclad that is.

I recall the statement too. That said for legendaries there's nothing stopping Jeff from clarifying an existing recipie to include a year on the tokens specified since the receipe did initially refer to tokens only available in that year anyway.

And nothing to stop him from adding options:

E.g. to make Drake’s you need a Carter’s Tome OR <some UR not printed yet>

CoA has two different recipes, for example.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Picc wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

kurtreznor wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: But, if we do, it seems we need to consider a schedule for reprinting all legendary components, not just this one.

That only follows if the reason for the reprint is because it is part of a legendary recipe...which is not the case. Players want it reprinted for other purposes, and it just happens to also be used in a transmute recipe.

I don’t like rules based on mind reading.

“It’s okay to reprint a legendary ingredient provided enough people pinky-swear they don’t want to use it for a legendary recipe.”

For the record, I don’t object to reprinting ingredients in principle. I don’t even object to reactivating relic recipes. If we can reprint URs, then why not relics?

Jeff has famously said that only one token (other than artifacts) will never be reprinted. Just because we’ve never seen a reprinted relic or legendary ingredient doesn’t mean we never will. There is no reason why a reprinted +2 Viper Fang, for instance, could not open the window to create more +3 Fangs. Surely all the justifications for allowing the +2 would apply to the +3. (The +5 is already timeless.)

Actually, he's on record that two URs won't be reprinted now - HoP and AoTF. He also said he wasn't going to reprint Relics, but I don't recall the exact wording so I'm not sure how ironclad that is.

I recall the statement too. That said for legendaries there's nothing stopping Jeff from clarifying an existing recipie to include a year on the tokens specified since the receipe did initially refer to tokens only available in that year anyway.

And nothing to stop him from adding options:

E.g. to make Drake’s you need a Carter’s Tome OR <some UR not printed yet>

CoA has two different recipes, for example.

That's true, and from my perspective preferable. I'd rather have more relics that end in the same legendaries then have him reverse course on a previous statement, but honestly either is probably fine.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Picc wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

kurtreznor wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: But, if we do, it seems we need to consider a schedule for reprinting all legendary components, not just this one.

That only follows if the reason for the reprint is because it is part of a legendary recipe...which is not the case. Players want it reprinted for other purposes, and it just happens to also be used in a transmute recipe.

I don’t like rules based on mind reading.

“It’s okay to reprint a legendary ingredient provided enough people pinky-swear they don’t want to use it for a legendary recipe.”

For the record, I don’t object to reprinting ingredients in principle. I don’t even object to reactivating relic recipes. If we can reprint URs, then why not relics?

Jeff has famously said that only one token (other than artifacts) will never be reprinted. Just because we’ve never seen a reprinted relic or legendary ingredient doesn’t mean we never will. There is no reason why a reprinted +2 Viper Fang, for instance, could not open the window to create more +3 Fangs. Surely all the justifications for allowing the +2 would apply to the +3. (The +5 is already timeless.)

Actually, he's on record that two URs won't be reprinted now - HoP and AoTF. He also said he wasn't going to reprint Relics, but I don't recall the exact wording so I'm not sure how ironclad that is.

I recall the statement too. That said for legendaries there's nothing stopping Jeff from clarifying an existing recipie to include a year on the tokens specified since the receipe did initially refer to tokens only available in that year anyway.

And nothing to stop him from adding options:

E.g. to make Drake’s you need a Carter’s Tome OR <some UR not printed yet>

CoA has two different recipes, for example.

True, but the CoA started with two recipes. He's never retroactively added a second recipe, but that doesn't mean he won't do so in the future.

We have to remember: TD isn’t even two decades old. There was a time in the not-too-distant past when nothing had ever been done before. There weren’t even tokens in year one, or so I’ve heard, and the first weapons didn’t even have damage wheels. We’ve almost doubled the number of classes and party members since then.

It’s not like we’d be bucking thousands of generations of tradition by reprinting a relic.TD has had more years without any relics than with them. There are only 24, and they didn’t even exist before 2012. (There were 4Cs, of course... it’s all in TokenDB)

Perhaps one reason they’ve never been reprinted is that there just hasn’t been enough time.

I'd rather see a new Relic come out than have a reprint take up one of our historically few Relic spots for a year.

That said, I have no trouble with most Relics being reprinted if they are in addition to our usual number of expected Relics. That would provide a way for newer collectors to take the step past UR, while not sacrificing the flexibility to get Relics in slots we haven't added them to yet.

As for why I say "most", I would hope that the Slayer Swords would be replaced/upgraded to something stronger, due to the power creep on other weapons. Similarly, the Mithral Bracers and Ring of Improved Evasion just don't feel like a worthy reprint as they currently exist.

Brad Mortensen wrote: We have to remember: TD isn’t even two decades old. There was a time in the not-too-distant past when nothing had ever been done before. There weren’t even tokens in year one, or so I’ve heard, and the first weapons didn’t even have damage wheels. We’ve almost doubled the number of classes and party members since then.

It’s not like we’d be bucking thousands of generations of tradition by reprinting a relic.TD has had more years without any relics than with them. There are only 24, and they didn’t even exist before 2012. (There were 4Cs, of course... it’s all in TokenDB)

Perhaps one reason they’ve never been reprinted is that there just hasn’t been enough time.

Brad, I agree that it would be nice to reprint some relics, I was just saying that Jeff's on record as saying that he wasn't going to do that. Here's what he said:

"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. "

That does seem to leave him a little bit of wiggle room to develop plans to reprint a Relic.

Personally, I'd love to see another +3 Saves UR Cloak token, with the +4 Saves Relic Cloak.

Regarding the history stuff - there were tokens in year one, but at GENCON 2003 you could only find them in the Dungeon, packs of them weren't sold until GENCON SOCAL 2003, and I think they only sold 300 of them. And for the first two years, the weapons were incorporated into the puck, and the only weapon tokens were +1 Rare weapon tokens that gave you +1 to the weapon puck.

“I have no plans...” is very wiggly, and very, very far from “I won’t,” and pretty darn close (in my mind anyway) to “maybe.”

Again, not advocating for or against any particular relic reprint. Just saying I see no logical argument that precludes it.

Mike Steele wrote: .

Personally, I'd love to see another +3 Saves UR Cloak token, with the +4 Saves Relic Cloak.

Reprint Dougals Cloak of the Stars and give it a transmute path.

But do you really want people with a Charm of Broaching to sport two legendary save cloaks?

Harlax wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: .

Personally, I'd love to see another +3 Saves UR Cloak token, with the +4 Saves Relic Cloak.

Reprint Dougals Cloak of the Stars and give it a transmute path.

But do you really want people with a Charm of Broaching to sport two legendary save cloaks?

I think it would have to be the exact same Relic and Legendary, because I agree two different Legendary Save Cloaks would be too much. Or, just make it a different Relic Saves Cloak, that doesn't have a path to Legendary.

Fiddy wrote: As for why I say "most", I would hope that the Slayer Swords would be replaced/upgraded to something stronger, due to the power creep on other weapons. Similarly, the Mithral Bracers and Ring of Improved Evasion just don't feel like a worthy reprint as they currently exist.

I agree on the Bracers and Ring although if you are playing Grind or Epic the Ring is more valuable.

Regarding the Slayer Sword the UR area it is in good company (7.5 avg damage) tied at the top with the Dread Sword, Viper Fang, and War Shillelagh. On the relic (8.5 avg damage) tied with the Viper Fang and Thor's Hammer in 1 handed. Lastly, in the Legendary area it is at the top again and tied (10.5 avg damage) with the Viper Fang.

Fiddy, check my math and let me know if I made a mistake. If you are saying 1H should be in the same damage area as 2H then I would disagree.

Ed

MasterED wrote:

Fiddy wrote: As for why I say "most", I would hope that the Slayer Swords would be replaced/upgraded to something stronger, due to the power creep on other weapons. Similarly, the Mithral Bracers and Ring of Improved Evasion just don't feel like a worthy reprint as they currently exist.

I agree on the Bracers and Ring although if you are playing Grind or Epic the Ring is more valuable.

Regarding the Slayer Sword the UR area it is in good company (7.5 avg damage) tied at the top with the Dread Sword, Viper Fang, and War Shillelagh. On the relic (8.5 avg damage) tied with the Viper Fang and Thor's Hammer in 1 handed. Lastly, in the Legendary area it is at the top again and tied (10.5 avg damage) with the Viper Fang.

Fiddy, check my math and let me know if I made a mistake. If you are saying 1H should be in the same damage area as 2H then I would disagree.

Ed

I'm saying that a 1-handed martial-only weapon shouldn't have the same damage as one usable by all classes (at the Relic level).