Strongest Element?

[fethec]

  for sure it has attack and defense against everything even cardplay if you incorporate the strategy of using bravery to fill your opponents hand thus making the drawn card not drawable at the beginning of the turn

[microman362]

Judging the elements by themselves, I would have to say darkness, mainly due to the quanta denial.

[rosutosefi]

Do I see someone who says darkness is the strongest? *prepares 6 holy lights*
Almost every darkness card is countered by light.

Just because a counter exists doesn't mean it's weak, and doesn't mean the counter is strong. Are you saying mono light is the strongest mono deck? According to your logic, all fg's and arena decks must be really weak, because counters exist for each of those decks.

On another note, Holy flash needs to be buffed so much.

It was not a serious post, but rather poking fun at the fact that all dark creatures can be countered by one silly 0-cost card.

one silly 0 cost card which is never used

I use it.

But seriously speaking, Fire is the strongest element. The weakness of darkness is it's relatively low damage output.

[kimham8a]

fire won't be able to do any decent damage against darkness, its creatures will die too easily and darkness will heal while attacking. Vampires with eclipse and crimson dragon have same value for pure attacking, while vampire costs half and has more hp. Also fire must use most likely two fire lances or the more expensive elixir to kill one creature because of pests and expensive creatures like phoenix and the dragon, also making Farhenheit much worse then vampire dagger. Darkness only needs one cc to kill, making it have better cc as well, which is supposed to be one of fire main strengths.

[omegareaper7]

fire won't be able to do any decent damage against darkness, its creatures will die too easily and darkness will heal while attacking. Vampires with eclipse and crimson dragon have same value for pure attacking, while vampire costs half and has more hp. Also fire must use most likely two fire lances or the more expensive elixir to kill one creature because of pests and expensive creatures like phoenix and the dragon, also making Farhenheit much worse then vampire dagger. Darkness only needs one cc to kill, making it have better cc as well, which is supposed to be one of fire main strengths.

How does dark survive when fire can just use rain of fire and wipe there field of all but dragons?

[valiance]

fire won't be able to do any decent damage against darkness, its creatures will die too easily and darkness will heal while attacking. Vampires with eclipse and crimson dragon have same value for pure attacking, while vampire costs half and has more hp. Also fire must use most likely two fire lances or the more expensive elixir to kill one creature because of pests and expensive creatures like phoenix and the dragon, also making Farhenheit much worse then vampire dagger. Darkness only needs one cc to kill, making it have better cc as well, which is supposed to be one of fire main strengths.

While vampire costs half, you must also take into account the cost of eclipse and the fact it requires 2 cards while crimson dragon is one card alone. Besides eclipse can be exploded. In any case, both fire and darkness are pretty complete elements with good CC and PC, and imho are both pretty even.

[neuroleptics]

basically i don't support the idea of the existence of a single strongest element. As you can see there're lots of counter to each other's decks. All you can do is if you think that card is really good and strong against opponent, play it, test it. why bother to find out the strongest element? I love fire of its rush, doesn't mean it's strong. I neglected the permanent control and this resulted in my lost to aether, darkness and air , because of their shields.