Should Magdaer become a legendary weapon

[Lucas.3718]

Adelberns sword, Magdaer, has never been really a thing since ascalon story. and rytlocks sword sohothin got a cosmetic update making it look like a legendary weapon. Now what do you think people. Should magdaer be introduced as a Legendary weapon sword, as a counterpart to his twin sohothin since they are twinblades, or should we just leave the sword alone.

[Ashen.2907]

Some other options:

4) No we do not need/want Magdaer released as a legendary because another option would be preferable.

5) No we do not need/want Magdaer released as a legendary because we do not want more legendaries, and are not happy with the two we have.

[squeegee.4320]

Doing so would majorly irritate all GW1 players who unlocked the skin as a HoM exclusive (like me).

[Dante.1763]

@narwhalsbend.7059 said:Doing so would majorly irritate all GW1 players who unlocked the skin as a HoM exclusive (like me).

Dont speak for everyone: If they added the new reskinned Magdaer/Sohothin as a sword id be overjoyed because honestly its awesome and i want it.

[Dante.1763]

@narwhalsbend.7059 said:Doing so would majorly irritate all GW1 players who unlocked the skin as a HoM exclusive (like me).

Dont speak for everyone: If they added the new reskinned Magdaer/Sohothin as a sword id be overjoyed because honestly its awesome and i want it.

[Ayakaru.6583]

Missing option: no because there only exists one, we don't need hundreds going around

Uniquities, same as aurene mount discussion, should be restricted to story instances

[Randulf.7614]

@Ayakaru.6583 said:Missing option: no because there only exists one, we don't need hundreds going around

Uniquities, same as aurene mount discussion, should be restricted to story instances

That's why I voted no, despite the poor and biased poll choices

[Dante.1763]

@Ayakaru.6583 said:Missing option: no because there only exists one, we don't need hundreds going around

Uniquities, same as aurene mount discussion, should be restricted to story instances

I have to ask if you feel the same way about Cadalbog?(spelling i know)

[Holykitten.3064]

@Ayakaru.6583 said:Missing option: no because there only exists one, we don't need hundreds going around

Uniquities, same as aurene mount discussion, should be restricted to story instances

You mean like The Shining Blade and Claw of the Khan-Ur?

[Ayakaru.6583]

@Haleydawn.3764 said:

@Ayakaru.6583 said:Missing option: no because there only exists one, we don't need hundreds going around

Uniquities, same as aurene mount discussion, should be restricted to story instances

You mean like The Shining Blade and Claw of the Khan-Ur?

Just because they destroyed two towers we shouldn't give them green light to keep destroying towers

[Ayakaru.6583]

@Dante.1763 said:

@Ayakaru.6583 said:Missing option: no because there only exists one, we don't need hundreds going around

Uniquities, same as aurene mount discussion, should be restricted to story instances

I have to ask if you feel the same way about Cadalbog?(spelling i know)

CaladbolgBit on the fence there.Since you can craft counterfeits to get more skins, so you can say they're not caladbolgs, but copycatabolgs

[Dante.1763]

@Ayakaru.6583 said:

@Dante.1763 said:

@Ayakaru.6583 said:Missing option: no because there only exists one, we don't need hundreds going around

Uniquities, same as aurene mount discussion, should be restricted to story instances

I have to ask if you feel the same way about Cadalbog?(spelling i know)

CaladbolgBit on the fence there.Since you can craft counterfeits to get more skins, so you can say they're not caladbolgs, but copycatabolgs

Same thing with this then. Its a lookalike and not the actual weapon, much like The Shining Blade, and the Claw of the Khan Ur which lore wise only one exists.

[Nash.3974]

No I want some non lore based legendaries and very poor poll choices… a simply no would have done it

[Ayakaru.6583]

@Dante.1763 said:

@Ayakaru.6583 said:

@Dante.1763 said:

@Ayakaru.6583 said:Missing option: no because there only exists one, we don't need hundreds going around

Uniquities, same as aurene mount discussion, should be restricted to story instances

I have to ask if you feel the same way about Cadalbog?(spelling i know)

CaladbolgBit on the fence there.Since you can craft counterfeits to get more skins, so you can say they're not caladbolgs, but copycatabolgs

Same thing with this then. Its a lookalike and not the actual weapon, much like The Shining Blade, and the Claw of the Khan Ur which lore wise only one exists.

Not quite, they're advertised as the real thing.Twin fire swords (hall of monuments copy of magdaer) is told to be a copy as well, even back in gw1, given as a medal or badge of honour to valiant militia

[Lucas.3718]

I see people complaining about the lack of choise on the poll. ok, sorry for that, still new to be active in the forums, for a game i love .

[Lucius.2140]

That's Logan destined sword, like his pal Rytlock he need ones (will still be the weaker). The collection should be to give it to him, next we get the skin xd.

[Chicken Fro.6953]

Abso-kitten-lutely not. As a GW1 player with the Hall of Monuments Fiery Dragon Sword skin (same skin as Magdaer), I would be superbly upset that potentially anyone could now get that skin without any Guild Wars 1 investment.

[starlinvf.1358]

@"Chicken Fro.6953" said:Abso-kitten-lutely not. As a GW1 player with the Hall of Monuments Fiery Dragon Sword skin (same skin as Magdaer), I would be superbly upset that potentially anyone could now get that skin without any Guild Wars 1 investment.

But can would you give rat's butts about any of the other skins? Theres literally nothing stopping it from being a good skin on its own; with the other skins that are almost never used, yet equally unique, as proof that "exclusivity" isn't the reason its coveted.

Releasing it as a legendary addresses multiple things.

• Doesn't undermine the existing skin, because GW1 players still have it. To this day, I'm still surprised it wasn't made the final tier of HOM rewards, because it would had been an easy thing to do to whip players into a frenzy.
• It gives late comers something that looks good, and are willing to get whipped into a frenzy over. Given what happens when a Gen 2 Legendary weapon is a hit, it should be no surprise the reasons why they're holding off Long bow and GreatSword as the last 2 on the list. The shining blade also came out of left field, and became surprisingly popular.
• Legendary weapons are gold sinks for the economy, so they are definitely trying to play different angles to get people to collect them.
• The exclusivity angle is now counter productive since GW1 is now on the fringes, and GW3 is a very real possibility as a future move.

With Firey Dragon sword being a GW1 icon, the only thing holding it back from being a legendary is its "Ace in the Hole" status. Its being saved for when they need a strategic trump card, or may even be a vehicle for GW3 advertising when the time comes.

I think more importantly the types of players that cling to exclusivity as the only value for things, are themselves dying off as having value to the community and the game's monotization strategy. The term "resting on your laurels" is apt here, because not only does the skin have no value on the first hand market (because Anet can't realistically make money off of it anymore), its also rewarding players for not putting further investment into maintain their status symbols. Its that latter part thats the problem..... not participating in economy or buying gems to chase new trends, and making a point to lord it over everyone else and upsetting a group that greatly outnumbers them at this point.

And if you really needed your ego consoled over the "terrible loss" of a status symbol, the HOM version is STILL completely exclusive to GW1 players. The Legendary version just looks similar, but isn't the same thing..... so by your own logic of the value of the skin coming from GW1 investment, that doens't change in the slightest.