Is the lack of a "neutral" set a bigger problem than we realize?

Topic, but I'd like to expand on my mindset on why this is something I believe needs to be addressed.

So right now, we live in a meta where Elusive Aggro is dominant, and there's a limited amount of ways for some regions to counter that strategy. Demacia has a share of Challenger Minions that can snipe the stealthy guys, Shadow Isles has removal (in fact, Shadow Isles has even BETTER removal tools than Piltover, the region that seems to want to specialize in that sort of thing, but that's another show), Freljord is pretty much reliant on Avalanche and whatever your secondary region's tools to deal (maybe you can buff Braum, and maybe you can slam an Anivia, but neither of these are really practical solutions as you're reliant on getting a way to buff Braum, and against the really aggro decks, you're dead before you can get Anivia to clear the board) This isn't an Elusive hate thread, I'm just using it as an example because it's the clearest way to demonstrate my point here, there are strategies that are going to dominate any card game, and most of the time the strengths of these strategies play right into the weakness of other decks. It's just how these things work, sure, and it's always going to be that way as long as card games are a thing.

...But the question I'm trying to ask here, is what if we had a Neutral set that any region could use, to at least offset the various number of overwhelming strategies that may enter the game, just to give the decks weak to whatever's dominating the meta this month a fighting chance? I'm not saying every deck should have the tools to counter everything, just give them one or two cards to make things a little less lopsided. Some equivalents to stuff like Dragonmaw Poacher, or Galakka Crawler,  and other such things would be very healthy for the game in my opinion, and I think it could do a lot to address the current Elusive situation and other things that might spiral out of control down the line.

So, is a "Tech" set of weaker cards that any deck can utilize designed to address certain specific strategies the way to go, or is there a better approach to balance the game in the long term?

Personally, I like the dismissal of neutral cards from a design perspective. It makes each region's identity/profile that much sharper. Also, personally, I like that it makes deckbuilding less complicated/time-consuming by reducing the total number of cards to choose from, but that's obviously not a balance argument.

I believe as long as Riot don't drop the ball on card buffs and nerfs, other regions shouldn't need very specific tools to counter very specific deck strategies; they could just build the own deck archetypes that are equally as strong. Like, if elusives cost more, did less damage to the nexus, or were weakened in some other way, different types of aggro decks might be able to more consistently outpace them. Or control decks might survive for longer if nexus healing was cheaper / more plentiful.

Then again, there are just the thoughts of little old me playing for fun and not really being interested in ranked games. Guess life is tougher when you permanently have to deal with the next big thing in the metagame.

I agree with BlueSpark.  I think the thing now is that regions need a little fine tuning and that might not happen until the next expansion at this rate.  You use the example of Frejlord: they actually have good challenger offerings too from  Stalking Wolf and Rimefang Wolf, but they kinda feel like a weaker version of Damacia's.  Ideally, Frejlord control decks would be able to rely more on its signature Frostbite mechanic, but as-is it feels really bad using Brittle Steel or a Icevale Archer just to prevent 2-3 damage.

In freljord you forgot the best tool against elusives: frostbite, those burst speed spells can't be denied and really wreack the buffed elusives, yes you can probably not kill them but you should apply enough pressure for them to want to block, there's an ashe + noxus anti elusive deck.

I am fine with no neutrals.. since you can mix regions and treat the secondary region (or shared, sometimes it's a 50/50) as your neutral pool, it frees up so much design space cause you can give each region similar tools without feeling like all the game will be the same..

about the current balance problems.. there will be balance changes in 9 days from now.. it's expected the game won't be balanced in month 1..

Quote From sinti

Quote From DoubleSummon

I am fine with no neutrals.. since you can mix regions and treat the secondary region (or shared, sometimes it's a 50/50) as your neutral pool, it frees up so much design space cause you can give each region similar tools without feeling like all the game will be the same..

Speaking of, it took me a while to see the difference between Whirling Death and Single Combat. I was like, why is the card that requires the units to be in battle cost more? Is it cause of the different region ... then after a while i noticed only one unit takes damage :D Cost me a game or two before i realized lol.

Yeah, it takes a while to get used to the "Strike" keyword, in hearthstone when 2 units battle they always lower each other hp equal to each other's attack value but in runettera each battle instance is called striking which is defined as "A unit with more than 0 attack deals it's attack value to another unit"

This is important cause of frostbite effects negating on strike effects, and it solves the confusion around how Katarina works, because she has quick attack and strikes first she recalls when she strikes and then the opponent tries to retaliate but can't cause there's no unit to strike. I really appreciate this rule since it also opens so much design space around the different instances of a combat and already is present in 3 keywords: "strike ","quick attack" and "double attack".