Why would I respond to "two rows are less than three?"
I dont know why, but you did. I was asking a user who said:
"Fewer rows do make the game more stategic"
There was no "two rows with this mechanic, but a general assumption i was curious about. For a reason i dont know you asnwered that question, which wasnt meant for you with an answer which not fit with the question.
can anyone explain why people so mad about 2 rows? are they prefer 3 rows wo any mechanic into them instead 2 rows with mechanic? or they want 3 rows with mechanic? with 2 rows , every row will be flooded with cards wich means deeper counter strategy, in current gwent the only decks wich flood the rows are swarms, i believe that in new gwent you also will start think about what cards use wisely , cause you can meet row card limit faster.
I prefer 3 rows with meaning before 2 rows with meaning. If, and only if, CDRed make a mechanic which only profits of 2 not 3 rows, i would go with it. But neither say something like that nor did i saw something like that in the reveal. And remember it: Iris and the Imlerith reach were the only cards out of 10(?) which have effects lonked with a row. So i dont even se the "meaning" of this 2 rows now. Sure 2 rows with meaning are better then 3 without, but you could easiely tweak 3 rows to it, like implement some cards like the shown ones.
On Top of that CDRed said, that they will keep the limit for each row and work with tokens. An idea i dont like at all except these tokens are kind of an archetype. My guess you can staple similar cards, which will add their values then.