Some thoughts about fire. I need a more balanced game !

[Xoff]

I was wondering why fire is such a nice choice to win easily and quickly.
Each card in the fire element is nicely done, none are overpowered.
But fire has a response to everything :

* Nice and quick and cheap permanent control : Deflagration
* 5/6 dmg to creatures : Rage potion
* Control of a many creatures : Rain of fire
* Control of immortal creature : Fire Shield
* Growing creatures : Lava Golem/Fire Spirit
* Resistant creatures : Phoenix
* Direct Damage / Large amount : Fire bolt
* Large damage weapon : Farenheit
* Need more mana ! = Immolation

The only other element with all that things is Entropy, but it is much more slower and random.
Fire is quick and predictable. It's just boring. The lack of heal is no problem, as your opponent has no time
to strick back, most of the time.

So either remove some things from fire (like "deflagration" could become light  "break", would be a MUCH more balanced game !),
or perhaps add some weakness to fire (it's not what I prefer) :
* Frozen and flooded fire creatures die immediatly
* When kids play with fire, they always got burn, perhaps lose some life when you play rain of fire/fire bolt
* pay life to revive a phoenix
* add "anti-fire" cards ( ??? )

[omegareaper7]

Fire decks are terribly easy to lock if you know what your playing.

[Aves]

Elements isn't just about element(s) you play; there's more out there than your basic mono-fire. Every card, individually, is more or less balanced, though it's not perfect. For the examples listed above, each and every one of those can be countered easily. And you're not going to fit all the fire cards into a single deck. At least not an effective deck.

[Pineapple]

I think the point he was getting at was that a mono-fire deck can have everything that only rainbows or trios/quartets have. He's not saying that fire in itself is OP or has a ridiculously high win-rate, but that fire, compared to all the other elements, has the most versatility, and we all know that mono-decks are more consistent than duo, trio, and quartets, so fire cards are, in the grand scheme of the meta-game, less balanced than other cards in other elements.

And pointing out one of mono-fire's weaknesses doesn't disprove this point, as rainbows and especially trios/quartets are very easy to lock if you know what you're playing.

[Aves]

I see your point, and do admit that is common and has many of the abilities that a rainbow/trio/quartet can have.
But the element of fire doesn't have everything that a rainbow or a trio can have.

It has no healing.
It can't slow down opponents (exploding towers isn't usually effective) like
It can't produce copies of creatures, as can.
It can't shut them down, like
It can't protect or heal its creatures.
It can't provide unblockable damage as (poison is unblockable, and purify isn't that common)

This is only an incomplete list, but you get my point.
The point I'm making is that while fire has many things, it certainly doesn't have all things. Can you compare immortality and healing with having quick PC? Is having a large damage weapon any better than using bolts or poison? You can make a list for each element and point out its strengths and weaknesses, what abilities and qualities it has and doesn't have, but in the end I don't think any element is better than the others.

[MatrimKK]

I think the bigger point here is that while has many great tools, you can only have so many in your hand at one time, and if you stuff everything you will ever need into a deck, you draws become less consistant.  is fast, but many other colors can rush as well.  There are many ways to stall out rushs if thats what you are wanting to do. 

[Pineapple]

I see your point, and do admit that is common and has many of the abilities that a rainbow/trio/quartet can have.
But the element of fire doesn't have everything that a rainbow or a trio can have.

It has no healing. SoGs
It can't slow down opponents (exploding towers isn't usually effective) like Isn't killing creatures and destroying sundials/hourglasses/weapons slowing them down, making it take longer for them to defeat you?
It can't produce copies of creatures, as can.
It can't shut them down, like If you kill all the creatures in a creature-reliant deck, then you have shut the deck down. Point is that it depends on the deck you're facing.
It can't protect or heal its creatures.
It can't provide unblockable damage as (poison is unblockable, and purify isn't that common) bolt/lance

This is only an incomplete list, but you get my point.
The point I'm making is that while fire has many things, it certainly doesn't have all things. But my point is that fire has many things, and, most would agree, most of the things that matter, while the other 11 elements don't have as many things and certainly not as much useful/versatile things. Can you compare immortality and healing with having quick PC? Is having a large damage weapon any better than using bolts or poison? You can make a list for each element and point out its strengths and weaknesses, what abilities and qualities it has and doesn't have, but in the end I don't think any element is better than the others. And what if fire has many more strengths than other elements? By strength, I mean card usage/effects, and weaknesses can only be limited to individual decks..

[MatrimKK]

again they can only have so much in one deck, and so much in hand at one time

[ralouf]

I was wondering the same thing : why fire have all those marvellous tool (good growing creature, good resistant creature, good effective PC, Very good and varied CC and big direct damage) while life for example have.. growing creature okay and ? no PC no CC at all no resistant creature no direct damage.. (okay spine shield can look like a CC card)

I don't say NERF FIRE but that just a thing I thought and this thread is perfect for it

[MatrimKK]

I don't think anyone will ever look at frogs the same after fighting against usem...

[jmdt]

I was wondering the same thing : why fire have all those marvellous tool (good growing creature, good resistant creature, good effective PC, Very good and varied CC and big direct damage) while life for example have.. growing creature okay and ? no PC no CC at all no resistant creature no direct damage.. (okay spine shield can look like a CC card)

I don't say NERF FIRE but that just a thing I thought and this thread is perfect for it

you guys miss the point slightly.  doesn't need PC to be effective and yes, Carapace is most definitely a form of CC.  In all honesty, Carapace is better than 's shield as the poison stacks and will kill everything eventually.  also has a nice bit of natural nealing that does not and will not posses, 2nd only to:light.  What people don't realize is that heal acts as a form of soft CC.  You are not killing the creature, but are undoing its damage.  Packing 5 heals means your opponent effectively has to kill you twice.  I happen to love spamming a series of heals right as I'm at the brink of defeat to watch my opponent Squirm.  and lets not forget bond.  Bond has the potential for 23 healing per turn in a creature spam deck, which just happens to quite good at as well.  As far as pure offense, mono is faster than mono and almost every other element.  Frog is the most cost effective creature in the game and cockatrice and forest scorpion are no slouch.  Adenaline is also quite boss.

Every element should be different, but balanced and for the most part such is the case.  A few cards may be a short bit on the cheap side, but the effects are right in line with what should do

I don't think anyone will ever look at frogs the same after fighting against usem...

[MatrimKK]

Speak of the devil jimmy