Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game
Elements the Game => Cards => Fire => Topic started by: Kamietsu on January 29, 2010, 12:26:16 am
-
(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/Deflagration.png)(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/Upgrade.png)(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/Explosion.png)
Discuss
-
A candidate for most versatile card in the entire game. Knowing which permanent to destroy in the deck you are facing is key.
A risky strategy that I'll sometimes use in pvp is.. when you draw a few of these in your opening hand and your opponent looks like they've got a bad draw.. take out their pillars.
-
:D definetly a good card
its many options make it a good card
-
So out of curiosity is there a particular reason that this card only removes one charge from the Bone Shield rather than removing it from play completely?
-
Steal also removes only 1 shield in the Bonewall; Pulverizer and Butterfly Effects' 'destroy' abilities also remove only 1 bone shield. This is because destroying/stealing the entire thing would be rather unfair; the strength in Bonewalls lies in the fact that they can grow to enormous sizes with maybe even triple-digit shield quantities.
-
Steal also removes only 1 shield in the Bonewall; Pulverizer and Butterfly Effects' 'destroy' abilities also remove only 1 bone shield. This is because destroying/stealing the entire thing would be rather unfair; the strength in Bonewalls lies in the fact that they can grow to enormous sizes with maybe even triple-digit shield quantities.
Personally, the inability to destroy it ruins the effect of Deflag/Explosion and as the card specifically says it destroys ANY permanent and for Bone wall to be impervious is a problem with balance. This is even more true because the other shields that use charges are removed entirely(if they can be) by any of the spells or effects mentioned and are more limited with the exception of the dimensional shields. This is a fun game that I do enjoy but this problem in particular among some of the other balance issues is just a huge question on my part, more so considering the few loses it has caused me.
And further the strength of Bone wall isn't in how many charges it can get, the strength is the fact that it is flat out one charge for any single source of damage regardless of how large it is.
-
Its a good card.
It helps you agaisnt sheilds,SOG and Rare Weapons.
-
One key advantage of this card in a mixed fire/darkness or rainbow deck over steal is that it is only 2 quanta.
If youre faced with an early discord played against you, 2 quanta is a lot more doable than 4 quanta for a steal.
Thus even if steal is normally the better card, as it gives you card advantage, in this situation defrag shines.
Also, i usually include 2 in a 32 card grabix style rush deck, as enemy shields are the major reason this type of
deck loses at all. In this instance i usually save them for the more obnoxious shields such as fireshield/ dimensional shield/ dusk shield.
-
(http://i54.tinypic.com/2po8uat.png)
Discuss.
-
So this makes it harder for other elements to play PC? Sounds like a :fire nerf to me.
This.
-
Whups... that wasn't the reply button. OR the quote button for that matter.
-
Methinks ~Napalm be abusing mod privileges. ::)
The nerf seems to suggest that Earthquake should also be nerfed - right now, they cost the same.
-
Methinks ~Napalm be abusing mod privileges. ::)
The nerf seems to suggest that Earthquake should also be nerfed - right now, they cost the same.
Good point. They cost the same and EQ destroys up to 3 pillars.
As for the deflag nerf....eh....it's not that big of a nerf, but that 1 :fire can make or break you sometime. I suspect steal will be the more popular PC option after this as it's only one more quanta yet it lets you steal the permanent.
-
Fire is beaten very hard in last times.
I didnt see Deflagration|Explotion as a problem, really.
-
This will stop us to splash fire in decks for PC?
Giggle. :))
-
With how many powerful perms there are in the game and continue growing, its sad that limited PC control like deflag/explosion is being nerf'd. Lets just hope new PC control is on the way, but who are we kidding
-
It's an awsome change. Fire needed a little nerf.
-
1 quanta is way too cheap for the ability to remove a key permanent from the match. I don't care if this hurts "splash PC", it's just a silly price for a powerful effect.
This does, however, increase our need for other styles of PC. I'd like to see PC versions of RT, Congeal, Iridium Wardens, etc. Or even a shield with some sort of reactive-PC effect on being damaged. Those sorts of "temporary PC" effects could fill the place of cheap, 1 quanta PC. Destroying a Perm completely, however, should cost more.
Ice Bolt and BBDoll hardly count - they are primarily used for pump bolt damage and reflective GPull respectively.
-
Is good. EQ is fine as-is. I like Gumbeh's new avvy.
-
People are proposing PC cards with new mechanics. Try to look at the cards ideas section. I think new PC will come soon.
-
Seems fine, on par with its utility. I don't think this signifies an eq nerf.
-
With how many powerful perms there are in the game and continue growing, its sad that limited PC control like deflag/explosion is being nerf'd. Lets just hope new PC control is on the way, but who are we kidding
I agree with you and I'd like to have someone with authority come in and definitely say whether there will be something comparable to deflag/explosion for permanent control for use with nova decks for example.
What I'm seeing is a gradual move from creature based deck building to permanent decks, especially now with this Shard of Void I've been seeing. This divide in game play between permanent users and creature users is making matches too predictable.
I think the idea is that creating a schism between these two modes of play will level statistical averages of wins/losses, which it does.
But at the same time, If I see a deck with 6 Eternities and 6 SoG, I don't care how many creatures/buffs you have, you're going to lose bad.
Now add to that shield spammers...
I'm disgusted at this change and the lack of foresight that was displayed when implementing this.
-
And hence forth, the Sun Dial wars began...
>:(
-
I agree with you and I'd like to have someone with authority come in and definitely say whether there will be something comparable to deflag/explosion for permanent control for use with nova decks for example.
Nova decks were already way too strong. A small nerf for them isn't a problem.
What I'm seeing is a gradual move from creature based deck building to permanent decks, especially now with this Shard of Void I've been seeing.
Um, and how is this a problem? Creatures are still used way more than non-pillar/pendulum permanents. Why not close the gap?
This divide in game play between permanent users and creature users is making matches too predictable.
I have no clue what you're even trying to say here. Most decks use both, and that doesn't even change predictability.
I think the idea is that creating a schism between these two modes of play will level statistical averages of wins/losses, which it does.
Schism between two modes of play? Seriously? Using permanents and creatures in the same deck is totally acceptable.
But at the same time, If I see a deck with 6 Eternities and 6 SoG, I don't care how many creatures/buffs you have, you're going to lose bad.
Now add to that shield spammers...
Eternity costs 6 quanta, Deflag costs 3. Who comes out on top? The deflag user.
And a pure damage deck can usually outdamage a stall.
And a 6 Eternity Deck wouldn't be very good and would lose to a lot of decks that aren't just immo or nova rush.
I'm disgusted at this change and the lack of foresight that was displayed when implementing this.
Fire has been the strongest Element for months. It still is. Nerfing Deflag and Explosion was a great change to bring Fire closer to the strength of the other Elements. If you don't want a balanced game, go somewhere else.
-
fire nerf, YAY!
wait...
i was planning on playing fire in arena... FUUUUUUU--- *HEADS EXPLODES*
-
lack of foresight that was displayed when implementing this.
Did you consider the possibility that this change was done so that new forms of PC can be introduced? As long as there is no revival of cards from the discard pile, destruction of a permanent is one of the strongest forms of PC. The only stronger form of PC would be steal, and PC-destruction-on-a-stick. Any future PC idea will be weaker, so if explosion costs 1, how do you make a PC card that's not completely inferior but still balanced and useful?
-
What I'm seeing is a gradual move from creature based deck building to permanent decks, especially now with this Shard of Void I've been seeing.
What you're seeing is wrong.
I'm disgusted at this change and the lack of foresight that was displayed when implementing this.
I'm disgusted at your whining and the lack of insight that was displayed when you posted this.
IMO, Deflagration | Explosion deserved this nerf because it's a terrible card. When you splash two or three Deflags in a deck, you are aiming to kill the opponent before the opponent can get enough permanents out to garner field advantage. It's silly how Deflagration | Explosion and Steal is the only form of permanent control that cannot be countered. Repeatable permanent control is balanced in that the source can be destroyed (Butterfly Effect, Pulverizer) before it is used, but, as for direct spells, you can only hope the the opponent didn't bring them.
This isn't too bad with steals, you only have to keep your important permanents in hand while the opponent has more than 3 darkness quanta.
However, when the opponent always has more than one fire quanta left over, you really can't do anything to strategically hinder Deflagration | Explosion. I see no way to balance a spell that completely destroys a permanent, which was once a card that was put into and drawn from a person's deck, but increasing its cost is a step in the right direction.
-
Nova decks were already way too strong. A small nerf for them isn't a problem.
okay.
Um, and how is this a problem? Creatures are still used way more than non-pillar/pendulum permanents. Why not close the gap?
This divide in game play between permanent users and creature users is making matches too predictable.
I have no clue what you're even trying to say here. Most decks use both, and that doesn't even change predictability.
I think the idea is that creating a schism between these two modes of play will level statistical averages of wins/losses, which it does.
Schism between two modes of play? Seriously? Using permanents and creatures in the same deck is totally acceptable.
There really aren't many high level strategies to building decks on Elements.
You have
a. immo/nova/shrieker rushes which are heavily creature based
b. quanta draining decks pests/black holes
c. heavy permanent use decks usually time that use hourglasses and sundials or SoG + Shield spam
d. misc gimmicky decks
1. like sundials till you get your dragons and parrallel uni at last turn
2. buffed wyrms/deja vus
3. voodo doll decks
What happens is that if you have an A deck competing against a C deck without PC the match will be predictable (ie. A will lose most of the time)
D vs D decks will be good fun. B vs A decks will be over quickly but still interesting and mostly fair I suppose.
B vs C without PC will also be predictable (ie B will almost always lose)
I'm surprised that wasn't more obvious.
Eternity costs 6 quanta, Deflag costs 3. Who comes out on top? The deflag user.
And a pure damage deck can usually outdamage a stall.
And a 6 Eternity Deck wouldn't be very good and would lose to a lot of decks that aren't just immo or nova rush.
The problem is you only need one eternity to dominate an immo/nova rush deck
Fire has been the strongest Element for months. It still is. Nerfing Deflag and Explosion was a great change to bring Fire closer to the strength of the other Elements. If you don't want a balanced game, go somewhere else.
There are certainly many more ways to lower Fire's strength. Many of which don't require nerfing an important PC card.
-
IMO, Deflagration | Explosion deserved this nerf because it's a terrible card. When you splash two or three Deflags in a deck, you are aiming to kill the opponent before the opponent can get enough permanents out to garner field advantage. It's silly how Deflagration | Explosion and Steal is the only form of permanent control that cannot be countered. Repeatable permanent control is balanced in that the source can be destroyed (Butterfly Effect, Pulverizer) before it is used, but, as for direct spells, you can only hope the the opponent didn't bring them.
This isn't too bad with steals, you only have to keep your important permanents in hand while the opponent has more than 3 darkness quanta.
However, when the opponent always has more than one fire quanta left over, you really can't do anything to strategically hinder Deflagration | Explosion. I see no way to balance a spell that completely destroys a permanent, which was once a card that was put into and drawn from a person's deck, but increasing its cost is a step in the right direction.
I agree with a lot of what you say with respect to the lack of counter for PC spells. The problem is we don't have instants or a stack.
There is no way to counter a spell without having a stack. What we do have are protect artifact spells and quints - maybe these ought to be buffed in lieu of another PC card. This is after all a discussion. I'm completely open to sharing ideas.
What bothers me is that this was done without discussion or warning that I'm aware of. And seemingly without much thought as to the obvious consequences to the basic mechanics of the game. It takes so much discussion and voting for a new card to be added yet something like this was just shoved down my throat...
-
Did you consider the possibility that this change was done so that new forms of PC can be introduced? As long as there is no revival of cards from the discard pile, destruction of a permanent is one of the strongest forms of PC. The only stronger form of PC would be steal, and PC-destruction-on-a-stick. Any future PC idea will be weaker, so if explosion costs 1, how do you make a PC card that's not completely inferior but still balanced and useful?
Let's not any of us forget the maximum number of deflags/explosions you get in your deck is 6.
Yet it's possible to have 60 (sixty) permanents in a single deck.
-
What bothers me is that this was done without discussion or warning that I'm aware of. And seemingly without much thought as to the obvious consequences to the basic mechanics of the game. It takes so much discussion and voting for a new card to be added yet something like this was just shoved down my throat...
...Seriously? You didn't see all the complaints about fire being OP? About those super heavy PC decks being annoying? Sure, they stemmed mostly from the arena, but I'm pretty sure they had discussions about explosion's (im)balance.
Edit:
Let's not any of us forget the maximum number of deflags/explosions you get in your deck is 6.
Yet it's possible to have 60 (sixty) permanents in a single deck.
Not sure what you're trying to imply here. It doesn't even seem like it's responding to my post.
-
Let's not any of us forget the maximum number of deflags/explosions you get in your deck is 6.
Yet it's possible to have 60 (sixty) permanents in a single deck.
Not sure what you're trying to imply here. It doesn't even seem like it's responding to my post.
Sorry that wasn't the reply I meant for your post.
If we were to look at creature counter/control for guidance we would see there are a lot of ways to introduce new forms of PC.
We can do something like a 1 fire quanta cost deflag for permanents that costs less than 5 quanta for example.
Or how about a rewind for permanents. Or a freeze/basalisk blood type spell. But we need more PC that much should be clear.
The main thing here is this all should have been ironed out before introducing the nerfed deflag/explosion.
-
you can't look at CC for the complete picture because permanents don't have HP. And all your examples are still inferior to explosion because they don't get rid of the permanent. And if they are inferior, they should cost less. But if explosion costs 1, what are you going to do? Zero cost is too OP. 1 as well?
-
There really aren't many high level strategies to building decks on Elements.
You have
a. immo/nova/shrieker rushes which are heavily creature based
b. quanta draining decks pests/black holes
c. heavy permanent use decks usually time that use hourglasses and sundials or SoG + Shield spam
d. misc gimmicky decks
1. like sundials till you get your dragons and parrallel uni at last turn
2. buffed wyrms/deja vus
3. voodo doll decks
You're missing half of the metagame, and you've generalized the other half, but whatever. I'm not going to explain the whole metagame just for one silly argument. And if you actually want to know what the metagame is like, there are threads for that.
What happens is that if you have an A deck competing against a C deck without PC the match will be predictable (ie. A will lose most of the time)
A is your attempt to name a rush, and C is your attempt to name a timebow stall. Are you forgetting that SoGs recieved a huge nerf in timebows? Definitely a bigger nerf than Deflag and Explosion. And even before 1.29, A definitely had the advantage. Stalls are made to beat Domins, not Rushes. CC Domins are designed to beat Rushes.
I'm surprised that wasn't more obvious.
You just don't understand the metagame, which causes you to think that there is a problem.
Go read up about the metagame. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30797.0.html)
The problem is you only need one eternity to dominate an immo/nova rush deck
1.) Eternity's main use is to counter Immo/Nova. Against anything else, it isn't even that good.
2.) Immo and Nova decks often even beat Eternity because of their speed. It takes 0 turns to play a Lava Golem or two, but it takes 2-3 for an Eternity and another 1 turn to use it once. And it will probably take another 3 to lock off their field, but without healing, you will still lose. Eternity definitely isn't OP.
There are certainly many more ways to lower Fire's strength. Many of which don't require nerfing an important PC card.
Deflag was one of the main cards that made Fire OP and it was also OP by itself. Nerfing overpowered cards allows for more strategies to thrive and makes the game more interesting.
Based on your posts it really seems like you're upset about your favorite decks being nerfed and you're forgetting that the game is improving in quality.
-
What bothers me is that this was done without discussion or warning that I'm aware of.
There was plenty of discussion in the chatroom and around the forums. The changes were made in beta for around a week before the update went live. Even before the changes in beta, there was talk about nerfing fire in the forums.
And seemingly without much thought as to the obvious consequences to the basic mechanics of the game.
Deflagration | Explosion has always been used to, and still can be used to, destroy up to 6 key permanents that would kill your strategy. A small increase in cost only truly affects how soon it can be used, what other things can be used with it in that turn. Sure, pillarless decks that don't use immolation have to pack less, but those decks remaining powerful is not part of the basic mechanics of the meta-game.
It takes so much discussion and voting for a new card to be added yet something like this was just shoved down my throat...
Actually, it doesn't take as much discussion for a new card to be added. Zanz finds an idea of inspiration he likes (yes, usually from the Armory, but it's not like Zanz only checks those cards by law), implements his interpretation of the balance-able idea into the trainer, people play around with it, suggest changes (like people did with the Deflagration | Explosion nerf), Zanz takes note of those comments, makes some decisions (like keeping the nerf as is), and after going through the commenting and reviewing phase a few times, the new card goes into the real game.
-
Okay everybody I appreciate the discussion/input.
Maybe some policy improvements can come out of this, maybe not.
But, I think I got out most of my concerns so that at the least they are on print.
Sure, pillarless decks that don't use immolation have to pack less, but those decks remaining powerful is not part of the basic mechanics of the meta-game.
This was my gripe. I'm sure the meta-game has some unique decks but I loved my pillarless deck so much that it being made nearly useless by this small change was extremely upsetting.
-
Anybody who says that 1 quanta is way too cheap for removing a permanent, plz check the cost of the most expensive creatures in MtG vs. Terror. (Doom Blade for you newbies)
-
Anybody who says that 1 quanta is way too cheap for removing a permanent, plz check the cost of the most expensive creatures in MtG vs. Terror. (Doom Blade for you newbies)
This is not a very good point. MtG is balanced in a terribly different way, has a cardbase where each EDITION has more cards than our game, its land-based cost system is actually far more restricting and makes every mana cost larger than its corrispondent quanta cost on a logarithmic base, has different deck restrictions that allow (or rather, force) for different card number balance and is generally a very different game.
-
Anybody who says that 1 quanta is way too cheap for removing a permanent, plz check the cost of the most expensive creatures in MtG vs. Terror. (Doom Blade for you newbies)
This is not a very good point. MtG is balanced in a terribly different way, has a cardbase where each EDITION has more cards than our game, its land-based cost system is actually far more restricting and makes every mana cost larger than its corrispondent quanta cost on a logarithmic base, has different deck restrictions that allow (or rather, force) for different card number balance and is generally a very different game.
Still, one card for one card is the same trade as here. You annoyed with the opponent deflagging your permanent? He has 6 cards in hand, same as you. You play one more permanent and he may deflag it or may not.
-
Anybody who says that 1 quanta is way too cheap for removing a permanent, plz check the cost of the most expensive creatures in MtG vs. Terror. (Doom Blade for you newbies)
This is not a very good point. MtG is balanced in a terribly different way, has a cardbase where each EDITION has more cards than our game, its land-based cost system is actually far more restricting and makes every mana cost larger than its corrispondent quanta cost on a logarithmic base, has different deck restrictions that allow (or rather, force) for different card number balance and is generally a very different game.
Still, one card for one card is the same trade as here. You annoyed with the opponent deflagging your permanent? He has 6 cards in hand, same as you. You play one more permanent and he may deflag it or may not.
Even raising the cost, is still one card per one card!
-
Anybody who says that 1 quanta is way too cheap for removing a permanent, plz check the cost of the most expensive creatures in MtG vs. Terror. (Doom Blade for you newbies)
This is not a very good point. MtG is balanced in a terribly different way, has a cardbase where each EDITION has more cards than our game, its land-based cost system is actually far more restricting and makes every mana cost larger than its corrispondent quanta cost on a logarithmic base, has different deck restrictions that allow (or rather, force) for different card number balance and is generally a very different game.
Still, one card for one card is the same trade as here. You annoyed with the opponent deflagging your permanent? He has 6 cards in hand, same as you. You play one more permanent and he may deflag it or may not.
Even raising the cost, is still one card per one card!
Exactly, so why raise the cost?
(IMO the fact that now it is less splashable is bad for the game.)
-
Anybody who says that 1 quanta is way too cheap for removing a permanent, plz check the cost of the most expensive creatures in MtG vs. Terror. (Doom Blade for you newbies)
This is not a very good point. MtG is balanced in a terribly different way, has a cardbase where each EDITION has more cards than our game, its land-based cost system is actually far more restricting and makes every mana cost larger than its corrispondent quanta cost on a logarithmic base, has different deck restrictions that allow (or rather, force) for different card number balance and is generally a very different game.
Still, one card for one card is the same trade as here. You annoyed with the opponent deflagging your permanent? He has 6 cards in hand, same as you. You play one more permanent and he may deflag it or may not.
Even raising the cost, is still one card per one card!
Exactly, so why raise the cost?
(IMO the fact that now it is less splashable is bad for the game.)
Or, why don't raise the cost?
The argument "one card per one card" doesn't resolve anything.
You use a card, opponent use a card, so the card aspect is balanced.
Then you should consider quanta to balance the card.
But when the average permanent costs :rainbow, destroying it with 1 :fire is unfair.
4 :rainbow vs 3 :fire is reasonable, 4 :rainbow vs 2 :fire is ok for an upped card.
-
Increasing the number of Permanents in the game...
Decreasing the playability of PC...
:fire doesn't get hurt much from this nerf..
:darkness still has Steal..
Seems like a 10 element nerf.
(Also, cheap PC isn't a bad thing because you can only have 6 copies of it in your deck, while a lot of decks have far more permanents, excluding Pillars/Pends.)
-
Increasing the number of Permanents in the game...
Decreasing the playability of PC...
:fire doesn't get hurt much from this nerf..
:darkness still has Steal..
Seems like a 10 element nerf.
(Also, cheap PC isn't a bad thing because you can only have 6 copies of it in your deck, while a lot of decks have far more permanents, excluding Pillars/Pends.)
Fire does get hurt by this change. Mono fire does not, duo fire is hurt only slightly, but fire as a whole is.
Also, regarding splashability. If there were, say, 4 more PC cards along the lines of Steal in (not so random example choices) :air :gravity :life :time, would it be that bad? More than half of the elements would have ways to dispatch permanents, the rest could "splash" them without actually splashing, but rather through synergetic duo decks. Meanwhile, unupped rainbows (AKA novabows AKA dominant decktype 003) are nerfed.
Besides, you can still play Deflagration off of Mark in an otherwise mono deck. 3 turns before dispatching a permanent is enough to get rid of Phase Shield chains almost completely, and other shields or important permanents can be deflagged in three turns too. Not bad at all, if you ask me...
-
Anybody who says that 1 quanta is way too cheap for removing a permanent, plz check the cost of the most expensive creatures in MtG vs. Terror. (Doom Blade for you newbies)
The Argument is that Hard PC should not cost 1 because then no weaker PC can be added. Terror (Doom Blade, Go for the Throat) costs 2 mana (1 black). Lots of weaker CC exists in MtG that costs 1 colored mana. To also be able to destroy Black creatures or Artifacts would push Terror up at least 1 more mana if the Bury ability was retained.
PS: Also remember 1 mana is a higher cost than 1 quanta.
-
Humm sorry, what's MtG?
-
MtG=Magic the Gathering.
-
Methinks ~Napalm be abusing mod privileges. ::)
The nerf seems to suggest that Earthquake should also be nerfed - right now, they cost the same.
Good point. They cost the same and EQ destroys up to 3 pillars.
As for the deflag nerf....eh....it's not that big of a nerf, but that 1 :fire can make or break you sometime. I suspect steal will be the more popular PC option after this as it's only one more quanta yet it lets you steal the permanent.
Destroying only pillars/pends is not really competitive.
Immo decks don't even use pillars :)
-
EQ destroys 3 PILLARS AND PENDS when Deflag destroys 1 of either weapon, shield, and others
-
Earthquake was already seen as one of the most OP cards in the game. It deserved a cost increase even before the Explosion nerf.
-
Two roundabout "nerfs" to Fire in a row, eh? First the Fire Bolt backhanded "nerf" which didn't actually do anything, and now this, which will hurt decks that splash Fire far more than any primary Fire deck. If it was Zanz's intention to counter the prevalence of Fire decks in Arena and PvP, he has failed.
-
Zanz has taken a big step in the right direction. I think Firestall is still a little OP unupgraded, but Fire no longer has the best rush as well because of the Immo and Phoenix nerf.
-
If it was Zanz's intention to counter the prevalence of Fire decks in Arena and PvP, he has failed.
The arena rankings (especially gold and platinum) say otherwise.
-
The arena rankings (especially gold and platinum) say otherwise.
I was commenting only on Deflagration and Fire Bolt "nerfs," did not see the nerfs to Ash and Immolation, which are more serious. I'd like to see Lava Golem get something similar, though time will tell if that's actually necessary.
-
The arena rankings (especially gold and platinum) say otherwise.
I was commenting only on Deflagration and Fire Bolt "nerfs," did not see the nerfs to Ash and Immolation, which are more serious. I'd like to see Lava Golem get something similar, though time will tell if that's actually necessary.
the ash nerf should be negligible when it comes to the arena decks. The immolation nerf is more serious, but I doubt you can attribute the significant decline of the number of fire decks just to that. In any case, the fact is that the number of fire decks has decreased, and since we can't really isolate the exact cause, I don't see how zanz has failed.
From my personal experience, the 3 cost for deflagration has definitely slowed down some of the silver league fire decks.
-
with the addition of shards in the new meta, explosions seems not that powerful edi. Shard of focus has become a very powerful source of pc and it can be used by all elements. I play a monofire with esplosions but I still find it troublesome to fight mono aether which can chain dim shields. but i add 2 shard of foocus and my win rate increase tremendously.
-
this is a the perfect card for those pesky dimensional shields