I am for adding two slots exclusively for utility. It shouldnt be neccesary but some scenarios are only solved by counters. If you hate stealth, you can add a source of detection. If you dont like negative equips add a source of shatter. Not sure how it would be implemented tho. Ideally they would simply balance better so that counter or die scenarios wouldnt happen. The last part is ofcourse easier said then done.
I have the same question as Dmr. Why would you want it? This is a bunch of baloney. You can do that in a 30 rune bg as well
Ever had a rune you wanted to fit in a bg an couldn't? I mean the reasons are pretty self explanatory. Just a little extra wiggle room. The fact that each expansion adds more and more content while the capacity of our bgs aren't getting bigger doesn't help. Honestly don't think we need to increase the bg size for every expansion, but I do think it's time we get a small bump to our bg size. IIRC we increased the limit from 20 to 30 because the the selection we had access to wasn't rationally mirrored by the size of our bg. How many expansions has it been since then? Does the current ratios justify increasing the bg limit slightly for the same reasons? @Sokolov mind taking some time to dredge up the stats?
I suffer under the exact opposite problem pretty much all the time. I have a 25-28 rune BG and can't figure out how to close the gap. So let's decrease the BG size by two. Or do something completely different by reducing the deck limit of everything that doesn't come with a sibling to 1. Highlander fun for e~very~one~
Honestly i agree with cydna, i think it's time we let people make bgs as big as they want. It's not a huge benefit to people and makes draw wins more difficult. Their are also so many more bg's i have never ran just because half my bg now consists of counters which is very annoying, were also back to the point of summon spam so their goes another bg slot.
See now, Yu-Gi-Oh has a similar thing, or at least it used to. There is a minimum requirement of 40 cards, but there was really no upwards limit. (Now I believe the limit is 80) Most people try to keep their decks between 40-45 just to increase they chance they draw the cards needed for counters or combos. A min - max system might also work.
In as much the same was you decide what you deploy, and how you use them. Deck building takes the same responses. Pox starts with the Runemanager.
Let me put it this way. If, instead of cards, the runes just had the sprites for them, and you delivered them into the battlefield from something called "Unit production", would it change anything in Pox? The only thing that makes Pox a card game is drawing and pack opening. Aside from that, it is nothing like a traditional card game like HS or Magic.
I kind of agree to the "it's time to increase the size of bgs", it would be awesome and refreshing -but- instead of opening two slots why dont we make those "special"? like the runes on those two slots cost -5 nora or have +5 hp or less CD when it's destroyed or similar stuff like that? The runes on those two slots could start revealed but on CD or for example, if we make those two new slots to be "Shrine slots", which can only be a relic or champ, then in-game the shrine has two activable abilities to deploy those runes adjacent, could be the banner and X other rune. The posibilities are endless
Disagree. There's a ton of overlap, and in some major things -- deck construction, for instance. While the resources are a bit tangled, you can still chart some clear lines between Cards-Nora, Reveals-Mana, and AP-Phases(tempo). I think of Pox as a card game mediated through some additional miniatures mechanics.
Well, to each his own. I disagree with your disagreement. Also, card games are much less imbalanced than Pox is, so theres that too.
Like the enthusiasm, not so keen on the suggestions. Lets keep it simple. They don't need more design work on their plate.
