Gameplay variety vs gameplay restrictions

[nMer]

Here's something I've wanted to discuss for some time.
In CotC decks there have been plenty of cases when a card is added simply because the better alternative is already included 4x. So, do you think it would make the game more interesting to alter the limit on the number of the same card in a deck? E.g. 1cc-3cc have no limit at all, 4cc are limited by, maybe, 8 copies of a card in a deck, and 5cc and up remain limited by 4 copies per deck, as they are now.

Also, while we're at it, what's your attitude towards abilities which are ALMOST similar? E.g. Ironhide Karash has its own unique damage reduction which is mostly the same as if it was a 3 health Armored Sandworm. Do you think that the added layer of nuances adds enjoyment and depth to the game, or is it mostly a needless complication for you and all abilities should be uniform?

P.s. Would be nice to hear whether this has been previously discussed by the DT and PFG, if it is possible to reveal such info.

[iClipse]

Eh, no.

Have fun playing versus a deck with 20 fireballs in it.

Also, Ironhide's effect is vastly different from Sandworm's because Ironhide's doesn't block ability damage. I can play poison arrow on Ironhide, and in 2 turns he'll be dead. Can't say the same about Armored Sandworm.

[spAce]

Not having all abilities uniform keeps the game much more interesting, in my opinion. The dynamics of Karash's ability keeps it strong early-game but weak late-game, while the dynamics of Sandworm's ability is consistently strong throughout the game.

[Warr Byrd]

Ok, first idea, I think almost everyone will say is stupid because nearly every deck would be 40x Spark. Even if you did set a limit on the low cost cards, you would probably find that it became very unbalanced as the cards were balanced with the intention of no more than 4x per deck.

The second thing, I think that it's a good thing. First of all, Ironhide is very different from Sandworm, but I recognize that was just a (poor) example. Second, by having abilities that are similar but not quite the same, you can increase the number of cards before having virtual repeats. For example, you could have Wulve Savage, and then you could have Wulven Berserk, 4cc, 2 attack, 2 health, "All damage to Wulven Berserk is reduced by 2." Relatively similar abilities, but Berserk would be better when dealing with direct damage type decks while Savage would be better when dealing with heavy ally or weapon based decks. If all similar abilities were made identical, then there would be fewer possible cards (Wulven Berserk would be identical to Wulven Savage, and therefore not be worth making a separate card), and there would be less variety in decks (some people running Savage, some Berserk, some a combination, vs everyone having to run Savage).

[nMer]

Ok, first idea, I think almost everyone will say is stupid because nearly every deck would be 40x Spark. Even if you did set a limit on the low cost cards, you would probably find that it became very unbalanced as the cards were balanced with the intention of no more than 4x per deck.

1x Evil Ascendant + one hit on one Spark?

Eh, no.
Have fun playing versus a deck with 20 fireballs in it.

1x Spelleater Bands?

I understand that the meta would change, but it's not a gamebreaking change. It's just that some cards would suddenly be more powerful as they would counter the "spam" strategies.
Also, which deck would win - 40 x Spark or 20 x Fireball and 20 x something else?

The second thing, I think that it's a good thing. ... If all similar abilities were made identical, then there would be fewer possible cards ...and there would be less variety in decks

Maybe this would force the developers to invent more abilities that aren't similar. This ofc isn't referred to SE in general. I just feel like the differences in abilities should be more outlined in their wording. It's more interesting to choose between, say, a long sword and a warhammer than between two longswords one of which is slightly better vs tall enemies and the other vs fat evil guys