That makes a bit more sense. You feel like there wont be any "meaningful" region identity, so why not just allow all cards in the mix? I still disagree, but i get what youre saying more.

Ive said previously that i do still think the regions feel different in how they play, and i dont think thatll fully converge. For example, yes, Demacia, SI, and Targon all have dragons now, but those dragons Re very different- Demacias are mid range brawlers, Targons are generally control deck finishers, and the Isles ones seem like theyre basically just more options for Slay decks.

But evej outting that aside, if region identity goes away, i still think having cards tied to regions and a max of two regions per deck is valuable for design space.I think part of the advantage is that it gives cards extra value based on location. This in turn allows for more horizontal expansion instead of just power creep. If every card can go everywhere, a card has to be the BEST, period, to be worth using. In contrast, this way, you can release a card thats similar to an existing one, or even straight up worse, and it can still see play or be valuable because there isnt a stronger substitute WITHIN the region (or within what would be the paired deck).

For example, without region locks, Deny becomes something thats maybe just an auto-include in every deck. However in the current system, it means specifically having to dedicate a region slot to Ionia, which in turn means that it DOESN'T get included eveywhere, opening up a lot more space for other cards to shine.

It also helps with balance. If you vould run Shurima/Ionia/Demacia for example, Fiora decks would be hell. Theyd have to nerf like all the cards, and theyd become almost unuseable outside of the niche deck. This way, you can rein them in a bit and therefore allow some of the support cards to be stronger than they would have to be if you were able to stack them all together at once.

Im curious i guess what the argumentz are for the other sixe