[Official] Rain of Fire | Fire Storm

[grimdragon64]

Compare:
                              to
                              to


2 Thunder/Lightning Storms deal 4 damage and costs 6/4.
1 Rain of Fire/Fire Storm deals 3 damage and costs 7/5.

When Rain of Fire/Fire Storm is compared to Thunder/Lightning Storm, Lightning Storm is generally better. It may only to 2 damage to every enemy creature, but it costs much less quantum. If you have 75 quantum of the selected element it isn't much of a difference, but if you're very low on quantum reserves because of a bad draw(say, 5) and the opponent has a field full of 4|2 creatures (I'm just making an example and I am aware this looks strangely suspicious to a battle with Fire Queen) lightning storm would be much better.
I'm just generally thinking it would be better if Rain of Fire/Fire storm would be on par (in quantum costs) with Thunder/Lightning Storm.

Please discuss.

[EvaRia]

The important thing about RoF is the extra reach.

With sweepers the more important issue is generally how many creatures you can get in one hit off one card.

Damage relevance has a bit of a weird curve so you can't just scale its worth in quanta linearly.

Still, I wouldn't mind seeing the unupped one go down to 6.

[serprex]

Also remember this is

EDIT 's so cheap it skimps out on punctuation, same goes for Thunderstorm

[Zergva]

Mono deck stalling (Fahrenheit, Fire Lance and Cremation for the fast start)  very effectively. If your deck is a mono, it can cost 9 or more, you'll use it, because it's still worthy. SoBr benefits on high  amount too. If you are in a duo or more, it's still an usable card. It's elemental difference.  works fast, so there's need for a cheap, beneficial spells.  needs crucial spells for high cost. Actually, your opinion is right, because raising the Thunderstorm|Lightning storm damage to 2 made this card much worse.

If there's need for a buff, I think more damage is needed (Actually, Desiccation|Lighning storm does more damage for much cheaper cost). Fire storm now is not a crucial mass CC, just "if I need +1 more damage for much higher cost than any CC". Of course, if it makes 4 damage, the cost must be a bit more (2 Thunderstorm+ in 1 card can be 8 or 9 and upped can be 6  or 7  ). It's still will be a bit worse than optimal in a compare, but  cards not for the price, for the effectiveness no matter what.

[dawn to dusk]

Also remember this is

EDIT 's so cheap it skimps out on punctuation, same goes for Thunderstorm

Sorry for going off-topic here but this quote made me think of how OP life is as well.
to
to

RoF kinda does need a buff though

[Zergva]

Also remember this is

EDIT 's so cheap it skimps out on punctuation, same goes for Thunderstorm

Sorry for going off-topic here but this quote made me think of how OP life is as well.
to
to

RoF kinda does need a buff though

This list is a kinda manipulative.



And there are the other dragons, what can't really compared equivalently (but  is much better). And if you have a problem, start a new thread.

[Tsmuji]

I think upped is fine, unupped could probably use going down to 6, air tends to be cheaper for doing the same as other elements and damage/cost obviously shouldn't be a linear relationship so having RoF cost 3 more than Thunderstorm for both makes sense to me.

[Odii Odsen]

Okay one thing shouldn't be forget. Rain of Fire is a card of the fire element. Fire is already pretty strong. It has PC (deflag) and CC (Fire Bolt, Rage Potion, Red Nymph AND Mass CC -> Rain of Fire) About the creature and Fire Rushes I don't even wanna start to talk. It's balanced to the fire element. Who think RoF needs a buff don't understand this game.

[Zergva]

Who think RoF needs a buff don't understand this game.

"Only a sith deals in absolutes."

Btw it was a bit more arrogant than enough. A bit more respect for the others in the community.

Objectively,  has more CC than  , more mass CC than    and better mass CC-s than  and if a card seems underpowered, it should have been changed . 

[jawdirk]

I agree that 6|5 would be fine.

[Odii Odsen]

Who think RoF needs a buff don't understand this game.

"Only a sith deals in absolutes."

Btw it was a bit more arrogant than enough. A bit more respect for the others in the community.

Objectively,  has more CC than  , more mass CC than    and better mass CC-s than  and if a card seems underpowered, it should have been changed .

1. Answers like this are the reason why I don't like to post in this topics.
2. It wasn't arrogant. Just the truth.
3. Water is not the discussion in this thread. If you wanna talk about Water CC vs. Fire CC, then I have to tell you people are using Fire mass CC more than Water mass CC.
4. If a card is underpowered then it needs a change, yes. But RoF isn't UP compared to it's element.
5. If you are going to make an element perfect, then you don't understand this game. Sorry.
6. And if you still don't want understand that RoF doesn't need a buff, then please don't anwser again. This was arrogant.

[Naesala]

Going to have to agree and say you're being rather harsh for no reason, Odii.

As it stands, I think the unupped could use a slight decrease in cost to balance it against the mass CCs of other elements and the better single shot CC of fire. I don't see RoF used very often, usually in rainbows if they want more control but rarely in mono fire.