Why are neutrals better than faction equivalents?

+
Can someone explain to meet the justification of making faction equivalent cards worse than neutral? I don’t understand why. Why do cards like Naglfar’s Taskmaster and Vrihedd Sapper have restrictions on them when Pellar is neutral and objectively superior since he can use his effect without restrictions? Is it because the faction cards have tags and synergy? Well, they’re supposed to. They’re supposed to be better than neutral. Neutral cards that do the same are there if you want extra tech. Why make faction equivalents worse? Devotion is already crippled enough. It makes no sense to me why the neutral version that any deck can run is superior to the faction version.
 
Can someone explain to meet the justification of making faction equivalent cards worse than neutral? I don’t understand why. Why do cards like Naglfar’s Taskmaster and Vrihedd Sapper have restrictions on them when Pellar is neutral and objectively superior since he can use his effect without restrictions? Is it because the faction cards have tags and synergy? Well, they’re supposed to. They’re supposed to be better than neutral. Neutral cards that do the same are there if you want extra tech. Why make faction equivalents worse? Devotion is already crippled enough. It makes no sense to me why the neutral version that any deck can run is superior to the faction version.
Pellar was 4 for 5, while Taskmaster and Sapper were 5 for 5, with the same restrictions and tags. Then balance changes came and created the current situation. SY and SK don't have any bronze purifiers at all. Devs must really hate Devotion. :)
 
I think The answer is it, devotion.

If you want The devotion benefits you Also have some harms in other cards.

Otherwise devotion or no devotion will resume If you use korati and oneiro or not
 
Top Bottom