What do you think about the idea of leaving certain very powerful runes just that - very powerful, but with a deck limit of 1? Before you barge in whining about inconsistencies and "that's how we've always done things", I'd like to remind you that this concept is already utilized with heroes and named runes (AND GHERN!). I was wondering how do you think this would affect the game. Fx. Channeled Violence deck limit 1, Pygmy hippos deck limit x1, jakei elementalist deck limit 1. What do you think of this approach to balance, and do you think that it would positively affect the game? Sincerely, Seal
Honestly, I am both for and against this. I can see how it would help diversity, and curve some of their power. I would like to hear more thoughts on this before I can say yay or nay.
Probably because it would greatly reduce viabillity of decks which rely on certain runes a lot, like myx or amplify decks with ice crystal/dragon skull (bad, but mb there will be buffs). Also, it would probably limit folks' freedom for no reason.
It would also greatly favor factions that have a wide variety of good runes rather than factions that are kind of crutching on a much smaller number.
It would greatly favor decks that have ways to reveal runes. Obelisk of Foresight would probably become an auto include for ST.
If we are removing bad abilities from the game, such as font defender, I think a case could be made to remove Preordained as well.
As somebody who plays highlander most of the time, I would have little to no issues with such a change, however, I'm likely in the minority in that regard.
Keep in mind I'm not asking for any change, I'm just wondering if people would consider the game more balanced if there could only be 1 elementalist/gale force in a deck, or if it wouldn't matter.
I like playing highlander too, unless its 8+ AP of movement on first turn. Then I just spam those bad boys.
I don't think it would matter, for the most part. Having a larger supply of runes to work with (as opposed to a bunch of 2x stuff) gives a deck more versatility, often without having to actually sacrifice the power of having 2x of something. Obviously, some themes would find themselves without enough unique runes to even field a real deck, but those that can, I feel, would find that they would have an overall stronger and more reliable BG. But that's probably just my opinion.
As a player who enjoys Themes I would argue that certain themes would be hit hard if certain runes where forced into a x1 place.
I agree, the question here is still, whether this could be a method of balance, and whether that would be effective. To justify this question a bit more, I find spot removal and spot-removal-like effects to play way larger role in the game than I would like them to have. Most of them aren't particularly difficult to execute, and can often win font fights without much place for counterplay.