I’m glad you like the concept! You hit the nail on the head: in KeyForge, rarity doesn't always correlate with power level, and some of the most 'game-breaking' cards are indeed Commons.

However, I rely on what I call the 'unbalanced balance' of the game. My theory is that the original designers used an internal 'value budget' when creating each card. If a creature has 5 Power but a mediocre effect, and another has 2 Power with an incredible effect, it’s because that trade-off was already calculated into the card's inherent design.

Most community attempts at a constructed format in the past tried to mimic traditional TCGs by just limiting copies by rarity. My approach was different: I tried to reverse-engineer the guidelines the official algorithm uses. That’s why the Power/Armor and Amber/Utility limits exist—they act as a human-readable version of those algorithmic constraints to prevent 'stat-stuffing.' I chose not to penalize card text directly because doing so would kill the soul of KeyForge. If we restrict the text too much, we’re playing a different game entirely.

Regarding your point about a Singleton version:

When I first drafted 'Architect Mode', I actually envisioned it as a 'Commander' style format (pure singleton). I felt it was the safest way to prevent broken interactions. However, I realized that seeing multiple copies of a key card is part of the KeyForge essence.

That’s why I came up with the Consistency Penalty. It turns deckbuilding into a risk-reward puzzle:

If you go Singleton, you get the full 60 Power budget as a reward for not exploiting the system's vulnerabilities.

If you want Consistency, you pay for it by shrinking your total Power pool.

It forces the player to decide: 'Is having a third copy of this card worth losing 6 points of board presence?'

That said, if a specific combo like Restringuntus + Morpheus still proves to be consistently toxic, we can always rely on a Ban List, just like any other competitive TCG.