TOPIC: 2025 Ultra Rare Tokens

Endgame wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: I think most players would rather have the DK set than the Relic level Redoubt set.

It depends if you want AC. For example. Running blind NM or epic double downs, A Dwarf Fighter or a Paladin may prioritize AC. Fighter may care less (AC is generally a poor stat as you know), and Cleric has other options as well.

Obviously.

My point is TD players clearly want STR more than AC on balance.

During the development of the class legendaries, Fighters strenuously argued that they didn't want, nor need, any more AC, and in fact probably had too much already.

TD has gotten by for 21 years without putting a single STR boosting token in the head slot. It can do so for another 21. If it must put STR in the head slot, it needen't ladle on other benefits.

Spell casters got their wish on Cranstons with + damage and an extra eye slot. We can 100% have +3 str helm with 2 AC and the classes than can use them are still going to be low damage (excluding Barbarian, who is currently on the Helm, but could be dropped)

Previously you staked out the position that this hat was a "slight power increase."

Now you are arguing that because ranged got a broken good UR hat it's OK for this token to be printed.

If this hat is truly only a "slight power increase" over the crown of might, then TD shouldn't burn one of its 20 UR design slots for the year to print it.

This spellcaster definitely didn't get their wish with Cranston's - because I argued it was too good and shouldn't be made - just like this helm.

Can I ask why + STR in a head slot is bad ? Or is it setting bad precedence? I put my vote to add + STR as in the DK set series, it is all based on + STR. I did like the Ret & Ac from the last cycle but because of his every other DK piece is, it felt off for it not to.

This will be my last post about the Death Knight Helm.

Perhaps instead of just STR, level it up from Helm of the Boar :

+4 to melee damage and -4 to Reflex Saves

?

Charm of Pointed Taunts: I agree with previous posts that this is underwhelming. I am not sure how many Dwarfs (Dwarves?) would even use this if it was +5 or more. How about adding that if they hit with the +3, they may Taunt again? (1/room).

Beertram wrote: Charm of Pointed Taunts: I agree with previous posts that this is underwhelming. I am not sure how many Dwarfs (Dwarves?) would even use this if it was +5 or more. How about adding that if they hit with the +3, they may Taunt again? (1/room).

Since Fighters already have pretty good to hit, what about something that reduces the to hit of those taunted ? - 2 ( stacks to -4 ? Not sure if that’s good number but throwing the idea out ). I think about how an enemy would act when taunted. If insulted enough to only attack the DF then maybe it would be enough to state he would be so enraged that they wouldn’t be as agile and evasive to incoming attacks. Would be a good stacking skill in my head. I can think of a couple rooms that the to hit on a monster was prettty rough. If they would have been taunted, a lost some of that and it helped the rest of us hit them…. I think is cool.,thoughts ?

To keep it close to the number it is now, - 3 to hit from Taunted creatures ( max of 3 of stacks to -6 ).

[Thor's Mug of Melee: I greatly preferred it as the original Thor's Mug or the Loki's Mug versions. Both were more fun and unique than just another damage bonus.[/i]

This would be great, Would also like FoB on them (Mug of Battle).

Endgame wrote: Picc's Grindstone
Love it - though I'm not sure we should be allowed to equip 3 of them with runestone bases. Maybe runestone bases shouldn't allow duplicate UR runestones, or we should put that ability on a relic runestone base?

Also, the sections in parentheses might be better stated as:
(Reusable Runestone)

I would agree with this. Personally I think the issue kind of resolves itself if Runestone fitting base just stays as Rare or lower. Then you can still use the grindstone in the normal runestone slot and add on fitting bases with rares as you normally would if you want them. Reusable Runestone is also an elegantly short wording.

I suppose we could also just say permanent rune stones fall under the same "no duplicate" permanent items clause that iounstones already do.

Beertram wrote: Charm of Pointed Taunts: I agree with previous posts that this is underwhelming. I am not sure how many Dwarfs (Dwarves?) would even use this if it was +5 or more. How about adding that if they hit with the +3, they may Taunt again? (1/room).

ooh, a UR-level "Taunt again" could be very appealing!

(currently this only exists as a 1/game Uncommon with a drawback: tokendb.com/token/abyssal-lenses-of-taunting/ )

Extremely Crazy question:

Should Bead of Greed just move to be the Vol reward UR? I can't think of another UR that would retain sales value through the year as much as a TE, and it wouldn't require creeping existing tokens to keep something special for Vols. Depending on demand, you could even have the 2026 vol reward token be Bead of Greed.

Even if numbers sold / rewarded are lower than BoB, Mythic Avarice could always be created with Omni Orbs

Endgame wrote: Extremely Crazy question:

Should Bead of Greed just move to be the Vol reward UR? I can't think of another UR that would retain sales value through the year as much as a TE, and it wouldn't require creeping existing tokens to keep something special for Vols. Depending on demand, you could even have the 2026 vol reward token be Bead of Greed.

Even if numbers sold / rewarded are lower than BoB, Mythic Avarice could always be created with Omni Orbs

I agree it would prop up volunteer demand, but my concern would be demand for token sales from TD.

The last 8k auction funded with PYPs going for $51 to $56, and while this set looks more attractive right now than the 2024 set (which in hindsight was probably tuned a little too low from a power perspective), the TE should be the big driver of sales in 2025.

OrionW wrote:

Endgame wrote: Extremely Crazy question:

Should Bead of Greed just move to be the Vol reward UR? I can't think of another UR that would retain sales value through the year as much as a TE, and it wouldn't require creeping existing tokens to keep something special for Vols. Depending on demand, you could even have the 2026 vol reward token be Bead of Greed.

Even if numbers sold / rewarded are lower than BoB, Mythic Avarice could always be created with Omni Orbs

I agree it would prop up volunteer demand, but my concern would be demand for token sales from TD.

The last 8k auction funded with PYPs going for $51 to $56, and while this set looks more attractive right now than the 2024 set (which in hindsight was probably tuned a little too low from a power perspective), the TE should be the big driver of sales in 2025.

I can't speculate on TD sales like that without data. Given PYPs have been as low as $47 this year, TEs don't hold the price up 2 years in a row.

Could always have Bead of Greed as the Vol Reward for 2025 and make it a PYP in 2026. That way Vol's get first crack at the extra Treasure, but TD still gets all the sales for speculative purchases

Lequinian wrote: Charm of insults - why limit it to DF? Open to all. It’s only one round and the DF has to be taunting.

Shield - still think Druid and bard and cleric don’t know how to use a tower shield. Adding them will encourage next rounds of token design to add them to the the “tower shield ++” UR cause “they already were…”

Why only DF? Leaving open the chance the DF will be able to Taunt more than once in a round.

Shield? It is comparable to other UR shields usable by Bards, Cleric and Druids. Besides, it is not a Tower Shield -- more like a Tavern Shield.

Thanks for the feedback!