In many ways this resembles the reason I say the phrase "Pillars are UP/balanced/OP." does not make sense.
Can you elaborate or link? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I'm thinking a bit about the metagame with this, although I'm guessing both of you, and others, have thought about it a bit more and have some good insights.
It's actually my intention to mess with the meta-game. For example, adding more cards that don't attack, or that prevent creatures from attacking -- but deal damage to creatures instead. This would also have a cascading effect on the meta-game, because once creatures are not attacking, it's more advantageous to play cards that prevent creatures from attacking--because the drawback of not attacking can only apply once. An example would be playing the SoPa with a Battleground or on a Rampaging Monster (both card ideas of mine.)
The natural counter-balance is that, like pillars, none of these skills help you directly win the game. So you always need to balance them with different types of cards. Is this what you mean by a cascading effect and pillars?
Another way of saying this is that currently there is a cascading meta-game effect that favors high-attack, low-defense creatures. This is the case because rushes are strong and have only particular counters, not general defensive counters. These types of card abilities will make slower and defensive cards stronger -- which leads to two effects diversifying effects: one, decks would get thicker; and two, decks design would involve more balance between offensive and defense creatures.
Of course, it almost goes without saying that the actual situation is more complex than that and would require more testing, but it helps to theorize to try and figure out a direction to go in first.
