Named runes

Was there ever an official response to what is the community's mostly a ubiquitous desire to have these become Unique?

I've yet to deploy two in a game...it just feels wrong.

 

thought this would be a thread about named tokens...

anyways, yes, named runes should be unique.

 

Thirion, I would like to introduce you Thirion, Thrion, and Thirion.

 

Doesn't make any more sense when it is something Like a Talgar attacking a Talgar

 

There should be an option for these, too.

 

Once upon a time, you could not have heros face each other. If i had vindrax out, and you deploy vindrax, they would both die.

Im not opposed to this happening again.

 

sameeee
.

 

Bump because I agree and think its important to have a green response on the subject.

 

Is there an option to make a named rune allowed in a deck less than once? Because that's how I feel about Shallaxy

 

Two Koronas in play? Cool.
Two Thirions in play? Cool.
Two G'hern Birthmothers in your BG? No. Of course not. That would be silly.

 

You forgot Moog! And the Firk hero Cthulhu.

 

That's awesome news, but you may want to tell the game, too...

 

Yes. When I opened up Korona and saw "Deck Limit: 2" in my rune manager, I did a double take. It's totally bonkers.

The reason G'hern were given Unique to begin with was to keep people from just running 2x of the 3 best G'hern -- it was to promote variety in BG-building. But if you have 2 Koronas and are allowed to run 2, you're apt to run 2 Koronas, because she's really good and cost effective. Aaaaaand etcetera etcetera etcetera. The opposite of Highlander! To embrace the concept of "unique = BG-diversity" for SP Mogas, but ignore it everywhere else in the game... it doesn't make sense.

 

Unique was removed just not to cluster the base abilities. The intention is to keep x1 Ghern per bg, so thats WAI.
What isnt is Named runes not having the same treatment, and I already agreed with Legatobud on that.

 

Honestly, I don't think G'hern need to be x1. Folks can justify why they should be until the cows come home, but I've never been given any actual logic that's specific to Moga BGs.

 

The logic was that ghern spots in moga bgs were highly competitive, and that mostly only 2-3 ghern were ever used (2x thrower, 2x isanghoma, the later 2x tyrant), so to increase viability and stop limiting design space, they stopped allowing you to just pick the best ghern.

 

I support Highlander.

 

Instead of making each G'hern actually viable for a different deck incarnation.

 

I fail to see how it shouldn't be the player's choice, all the same. I get the logic, but it's not specific to Moga BGs, and it's more of a dilemma than it is an actual "problem." Every single theme is basically an exercise in "find 2 of every awesome X, and include them." If you want to keep people from running 2 Throwers (because they ARE awesome), then deal with the Thrower.

Exactly. SOE did what SOE did best: they half-assed a solution with broad strokes.

 

Of course, it IS much easier said than done.

Hmm. I didn't realize this was an SOE-era thing. Regardless, I feel like we're blaming SOE too much, especially for design decisions that seem more tied to a dev's philosophy/thought processes than actual SOE imposed decisions and restrictions.