[Official] Rain of Fire | Fire Storm

[Odii Odsen]

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.

You know, there is a reason why mass CC is not used very often. Cheap + strong = OP. It's good as it is.
Naesala, I played over 100 games in a row in Bronze to test a mono darkness deck, trust me, I saw more Mono Fire decks with RoF than I wanted to see. Making them cheaper would be a bad joke. Really!

[omegareaper7]

So being put in to a lot of bronze decks makes a card not weaker then others now? If flooding was put in more, would that not be underpowered either?

[serprex]

Odii wasn't being arrogant, only a bit too ad hominem. His point was that RoF's expense is integral to elements's balance

Flooding would be in more decks otherwise. Flooding is a hard counter to swarm decks, but RoF is good enough against them and more. Flooding does suffer use in a non balance respect by requiring its user have some way of dealing with its elemental hate

Note that Odii offered evidence of RoF's use in response to a vague claim that RoF's main use is in rainbows

Another point: RoF is staple in firestalls. Granted cost is less important in that scenario

[Naesala]

Note that Odii offered evidence of RoF's use in response to a vague claim that RoF's main use is in rainbows

Another point: RoF is staple in firestalls. Granted cost is less important in that scenario

Note that Odii said nothing but "If you don't understand why you're wrong, you just dont understand the game" before my "vague claim". I don't claim to have better evidence than Odii, but I will say now that my evidence is based on my (granted limited) PvP experience and arena experience. I will also say people in bronze, in general, is less experienced players with smaller cardpools. If Odii will bring up a point on the actual balance of the cards, rather than saying "it's good because it's in fire" or "you dont understand, so you don't get the game". I'm not saying it's arrogance, I'm saying it's harsh and unfair and perhaps a bit elitist and definantly a poor arguement.

And your claim it's a staple in firestalls is just as "vague" as my point that it's seen more often in rainbows. Neither point is giving an original point of view.

[Keolino]

The only reason why you don't use rain of fire in mono fire decks isn't because it is weak, but because it is expensive...

In a unupped mono fire, you take heavy (and expensive) hitters like phoenixes and dragons (or lava golem) and add some cheap control that won't slow you down too much. (deflags+rage potions or fire bolts) A Rain of Fire would be really strong, but expensive at the same time, so you won't use it in the rushy fire element that much. (Arena decks are a different matter (since double draw/mark increase/etc.))

Rain of Fire, an expensive control card, just won't fit in the normal picture of the fire element with strong hitters and cheap control.

I personally don't really care if the unupped cost is decreased to 6, but anything else would make this card too strong.


(And by the way, the ratio between damage/cost of thunderstorm and RoF is fine, since you can control many rush cards like shreekers, or frogs, and some others with a RoF, but not with a thunderstorm.)

[Odii Odsen]

I already said why Rain of Fire would be too strong with a buff.

So being put in to a lot of bronze decks makes a card not weaker then others now? If flooding was put in more, would that not be underpowered either?

This was one example of the experience I did!

Note that Odii offered evidence of RoF's use in response to a vague claim that RoF's main use is in rainbows

Another point: RoF is staple in firestalls. Granted cost is less important in that scenario

Note that Odii said nothing but "If you don't understand why you're wrong, you just dont understand the game" before my "vague claim". I don't claim to have better evidence than Odii, but I will say now that my evidence is based on my (granted limited) PvP experience and arena experience. I will also say people in bronze, in general, is less experienced players with smaller cardpools. If Odii will bring up a point on the actual balance of the cards, rather than saying "it's good because it's in fire" or "you dont understand, so you don't get the game". I'm not saying it's arrogance, I'm saying it's harsh and unfair and perhaps a bit elitist and definantly a poor arguement.

And your claim it's a staple in firestalls is just as "vague" as my point that it's seen more often in rainbows. Neither point is giving an original point of view.

It seems like you want to discuss about what I said, not about the card. How ever, I already said why RoF shouldn't be buffed and it seems like you just read in my first post what you wanted to read. Saying that somebody don't get the game, isn't a poor argument, Naesala. It's no argument. It's just my point of view.

Keolino wrote the best post so far!

[Naesala]

Saying that somebody don't get the game, isn't a poor argument, Naesala. It's no argument. It's just my point of view.

And I'm saying openly expressing that point of view is rude and harsh. I gave my discussion and view on RoF in half of each my posts, and my opinion on your rudeness in the other half. If you were less harsh and rude and more explanatory we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I agree mostly with what Keolino said. And that is why I could stand to see it getting a slight nerf. 6 and 2 cards for 4 versus 7 and 1 card for 3 feels unbalanced, which is the only place in which I disagree with Keolinos post. I think the 1 quanta nerf should be plenty, especially when we keep in mind Fire gets free attack/damage for it's costs usually.

[Keolino]

I agree mostly with what Keolino said. And that is why I could stand to see it getting a slight nerf. 6 and 2 cards for 4 versus 7 and 1 card for 3 feels unbalanced, which is the only place in which I disagree with Keolinos post. I think the 1 quanta nerf should be plenty, especially when we keep in mind Fire gets free attack/damage for it's costs usually.

Lets play with numbers...

For 6 damage you need:
Thunderstorm: 9 quanta, 3 cards
Rain of Fire: 14 quanta, 2 cards

^ I don't really know how this could possibly seem unbalanced...

Some math (with the 6 damage from above):

9 quanta * 3 cards   ~   14 quanta * 2 cards
                           27 ~ 28

So you see, including the advantage from being able to deal more damage with less cards, this is the result. They are equal.

[Odii Odsen]

If I speak your language a bit better, then it would be easier for me to explain it. It was never an intention to be harsh or rude or arrogant against the threadcreator. And I still think it's not a bad thing to tell somebody that he isn't understanding this game. It's still just a game. Don't be that sensitive. And I don't think the threadcreator is feeling attacked or taking it personally. If yes, he can tell it on his own and we will clarify it without a third party. And this is actually not the discussion in this thread. Making a mountain of a molehill isn't the right solution, too. I hope we are finished with that stupid discussion.

My problem with a RoF buff is that Fire is already pretty strong, you have enough ways to CC with fire. Making it cheaper to CC more creatures at the same time would be a big improvement, what I am trying to avoid. You can not compare Thunderstorm with Rain of Fire that easy. Tunderstorm is cheap, yes, but 3 dmg per creature is a big difference than 2 dmg per creature. The argument that 2 TS making 4 dmg for 6  Quanta (lets take an example of the unupgraded version) is doing more dmg for less quanta, is not a good argument. Don't forget you need TWO cards for a bigger dmg. One additional card to make 1 dmg more means a slower/bigger deck. And please always compare the card to it's element. Thunderstorm was unbalanced. Zanz made a buff. Now it's perfect imo. Rain of Fire and it's cost is also pretty balanced to its element. And this is what I said in my first post. RoF is balanced to it's element. The cost is balanced. Give fire more cheaper CC and this game wouldn't be fun.

[Kater543]

One difference I would notice between thunderstorms and rain of fires is that you can have 6 rains of fire(lol although not recommended) to deal a total of 18 damage, while thunderstorms would deal a total of 12 dmg. Additionally, the chance of drawing one rain of fire is higher than drawing 2 thunderstorms in a deck with 6 of each.  This is what justifies its higher cost. THink about it this way for the quanta cost 2x2+1=5. 3x2+1=7. I think this was the original logic behind the quanta costs of each card. To lower the upper cost you need to lower the lower cost as well I would believe, if only to balance it out in terms of unupped vs upped.

[Naesala]

THink about it this way for the quanta cost 2x2+1=5. 3x2+1=7. I think this was the original logic behind the quanta costs of each card. To lower the upper cost you need to lower the lower cost as well I would believe, if only to balance it out in terms of unupped vs upped.

Except for Thunderstorm originally did 1 damage, so this isn't the"original" logic. Here's how I view the numbers, based on the quanta theory I've seen floating around:
3 + 1 Card = 4 cost 2 damage or 6  +2 Cards = 8 cost for 4 damage
7 + 1 Card = 8 cost for 3 damage
8 cost for 4 damage =/= 8 cost for 3 damage.
Additionally, Fire cards tend to deal more damage for their cost. Now, Mass CC has a bigger range, so even a point of damage widely increases the effectiveness. So, to bring it into balance without making it OP, a -1 cost to the original should do.

[Keolino]

3 + 1 Card = 4 cost 2 damage or 6  +2 Cards = 8 cost for 4 damage
7 + 1 Card = 8 cost for 3 damage
8 cost for 4 damage =/= 8 cost for 3 damage.

So Archangel (6 quanta +1 card for 7 damage) is the same cost as photon (0 quanta + 7 cards for 7 damage), and therefor they have the same power... and Antlions (8+4 for 8 damage) have the same cost as a stone dragon (10+1 for 8 damage)
So acording to your theory of this cost Antlions would be nearly as strong as stone dragons and can be used for a rush the same way...?

Please calculate with 1 card = 3 cost at least...