[Official] Reverse Time | Rewind

[OldTrees]

I don't understand this logic. Pawn in chess can't destroy Queen so easy. It is really bad that we allowed on this in Elements.
Your counting is wrong. When I destroy Golem or Dragon I gain +N HP, where N is attack destroyed creature. So when I destroy Dragon 10|5 then Lighting give me 10HP per turn. It is 2x more than SoG which cost 3 and it is easy to destroy/steal. It is incredibly unbalanced.
But... I don't believe that can be ever changed.

Comparing 1 Lighting to 1 Lava Golem:
Lightning does not heal. It prevents further damage.
Lava Golem does 5 damage + 5 damage per turn not removed + growth if not removed
Lightning can either deal 5 damage or remove Lava Golem
If Lightning deals 5 damage then Lava Golem will deal a minimum of 10 damage. (5<10)
If Lightning removes Lava Golem then it does 0 damage to the Lava Golem's 5. (0<5)
Since 5<10 and 0<5, Lightning should cost less than Lava Golem.

1 Lightning does not completely negate 1 Lava Golem. Therefore it must be cheaper. (Aka a Knight taking a Queen after the Queen took 2 Rooks)

[Picheleiro]

Well, I will try to speak serious but I even dont know where to start.

A creature like a Dragon 10/5 "gives you +10Hp/turn" of advantage. It has Airbone and 5Hp too but that it´s more to combo and defense capacities. And that´s all normally. It´s a very simple card, even more alone. Straight.

A card like Lighting is more complicate.

Alone, Lighting do 5 damage to a player. Only one turn. So it is not a real choice to win the game by the normal way. Even in groups. Horned frog cost only one more and do Lighting damage every turn. But Lighting can be use to damage a creature too. In the best case you get rid off it, and gain quantum advantage or in very special cases, card advantage. But there cases where you dont kill the creature, you just low its Hp. And that is very expensive at the cost of one card and one quantum.

I can kill 6 Lava Golem with a Lightning Storm, but the card it isn´t OP because it´s not insured. I cant follow your thoughts well, sorry.

[Atico]

Why You compare Dragon (creatures) with counters like Lighting? It is stupid, all we know that I need attack to win. When You want compare counters/defend, lets compare Lighting with SoG.
When Lighting destroy creature like Dragon 10|5 I "gain" 10 HP per turn because opponent didn't put damage for me. It isn't heal, but it gives me 10 HP more in next turn. SoG gives me only 3 (5) HP, it is easy to destroy, have advantage only when creature's HP >5 and cost 3x more.
CC/PC from spells are too powerful. It is too easy in this game to hit opponent's cards and too difficult to prevent this. How can I prevent my creature against Lighting, Rewind or BB? Only by Quint for... 3 (!) , so 3x more than all those cards cost.
So not Rewind is OP, but all cards like Lighting, Rewind, BB, also BlackHole, Quicksand (QS especially) etc...

[Picheleiro]

Well, lets forgive all you say about the dragons, then.

SoG doesnt need creatures without quint, burrow, low Hp etc, etc. In fact only needs that you dont be with full HP, so works fine against all but OTK and deckout decks. And even if the opponent has creatures, and that creatures can attack this doesnt mean those creatures needs to deal more than 5 points of damage per turn.

I dont think RT is OP, but Im not 100% sure. But Im sure Lighting isn´t OP. That is ridiculous.

[Atico]

SoG needs deck without PC. Lighting needs creature wiithout Quint. Which situation is often in game?
I want to open Your eyes and show few things which aren't balanced here.
How we can change it? I have no good idea (except making Marks better, which I wrote in other topic) but something should be done. Situation when cards like Lighting, Rewind, BB, QS etc. can be used in a lot of games with succesfull is bad.

[Laxadarap]

SoG needs deck without PC. Lighting needs creature wiithout Quint. Which situation is often in game?
I want to open Your eyes and show few things which aren't balanced here.
How we can change it? I have no good idea (except making Marks better, which I wrote in other topic) but something should be done. Situation when cards like Lighting, Rewind, BB, QS etc. can be used in 95% games with succesfull is bad.

I kind of get your reasoning, but completely disagree.  Say you pack 6 lightnings, your opponent has to have 6 creatures with under 5 defense.  Almost all decks have more than that.  You are sacrificing a space in your deck to take out a creature.  If their other creatures are stronger than the little you can stuff in your deck, then it means that they will win.  Take grabbies.  They do 2 damage a turn burrowed.  Say that you draw 6 lightning and I draw 6 grabbies, in those 6 turns, you could do 30 damage to my health vs. their 42 damage, not even counting the fact that you can unborrow them for the extra 6 damage on the final turn, or an additionaly 24 onto that 42.  That is basically game.  You say that it denies damage and thus consitutes as healing, it can only "grant" so much healing, and generally on weaker creatures.  Using lightning to "grant you healing", you also forsake a damage card, meaning that You "give" them healing too. Lightning is completely balanced, and your argument is basically invalid, mostly because lightning takes up a card space.

EDIT: This is also not the place to talk about lightning, however since your calling for a nerf (or ban?) on all CC spells, I used lightning as an example

[OldTrees]

Why You compare Dragon (creatures) with counters like Lighting? It is stupid, all we know that I need attack to win. When You want compare counters/defend, lets compare Lighting with SoG.
When Lighting destroy creature like Dragon 10|5 I "gain" 10 HP per turn because opponent didn't put damage for me. It isn't heal, but it gives me 10 HP more in next turn. SoG gives me only 3 (5) HP, it is easy to destroy, have advantage only when creature's HP >5 and cost 3x more.
CC/PC from spells are too powerful. It is too easy in this game to hit opponent's cards and too difficult to prevent this. How can I prevent my creature against Lighting, Rewind or BB? Only by Quint for... 3 (!) , so 3x more than all those cards cost.
So not Rewind is OP, but all cards like Lighting, Rewind, BB, also BlackHole, Quicksand (QS especially) etc...

Preventing damage and healing damage are different. Please be specific/accurate with your language.

Why do I make the comparision between Win Conditions (Lava Golem), Counters (Lightning) and Cards that are both Win Conditions and Counters (Owl's Eye)?
1) To highlight the Fact that Win Conditions are more valuable than Answers and thus must cost more than Answers.
2) To explain the difference in cost between Lightning and Owl's Eye
I want to compare Win Conditions with Counters because that was the topic we were discussing.

If you want to discuss various forms of Counters (Lightning, Shard of Gratitude, etc) that is a different matter and can be discussed. However you should note that all Counters (including SoG) need to be cheaper than the Win conditions they counter unless they have additional benefits (like Owl's Eye).

PS: Where did you get the idea that SoG costs ~3x as much as Lightning? Even in the extreme case of using the upgraded costs and ignoring the upgrade cost AND ignoring the card cost, it is only 3 vs 1 . 3 << 3 .

[Atico]

Talking like "I have 6 creatures, You have 6 Lighting" is stupid... All we know that deck with 6 SoG, 6 CC, 6 PC, 12 Towers can't win. If we want to talk seriously we should see how it looks when Player1 has got 6 creatures and Player2 has got 4 the same creatures + 2 Lighting. Who win this match? In most games winner will be Player2 and he will do it with using less quantum than opponent. And this is fact.
Destroying opponent cards should be difficult. Today it is easier to destroy opponent's creature than heal Yourself...

[OldTrees]

Talking like "I have 6 creatures, You have 6 Lighting" is stupid... All we know that deck with 6 SoG, 6 CC, 6 PC, 12 Towers can't win. If we want to talk seriously we should see how it looks when Player1 has got 6 creatures and Player2 has got 4 the same creatures + 2 Lighting. Who win this match? In most games winner will be Player2 and he will do it with using less quantum than opponent. And this is fact. And this is bad situation (in my opinion).
Destroying opponent cards should be difficult.

Let us assume for a moment that Lightning and Lava Golem were of equal value (aka equal cost). We can test a deck of Pillars + 6 Lava Golems vs a deck of 4 Lava Golem + 2 Lightnings. We would quickly observe that the deck with the 2 5 +1card cost Lightnings would lose more often. If Lightning and Lava Golem were of equal value then both of these decks should have roughly equal chances if both cards had equal costs. Obviously this hypothetical test proves that Lightning would be UP relative to Lava Golem IF it cost the same as Lava Golem. Therefore Lightning must cost less than Lava Golem.

Conclusion: Lightning would be UP if it cost the same as Lava Golem therefore it must cost less than Lava Golem.

Today it is easier destroy opponent's creature than heal Yourself...

Shard of Gratitude costs about the same as Lightning. One works better against behemoths the other against swarms.

[Laxadarap]

Talking like "I have 6 creatures, You have 6 Lighting" is stupid... All we know that deck with 6 SoG, 6 CC, 6 PC, 12 Towers can't win. If we want to talk seriously we should see how it looks when Player1 has got 6 creatures and Player2 has got 4 the same creatures + 2 Lighting. Who win this match? In most games winner will be Player2 and he will do it with using less quantum than opponent. And this is fact.
Destroying opponent cards should be difficult. Today it is easier to destroy opponent's creature than heal Yourself...

How do you get this math? Its wrong.  4 creatures +4 creatures is equal.  However, when you waste 2 lighhtning, you are sacrificing potential damage.  When you enemy plays a creature, they get the initial damage as well, and that means that the person with the lightnings will be at a disadvantage.  Take for example ruby dragons.  6 ruby dragons is 90 damage, if they all die on first turn.  With your 4 rubies and a lightning, it is 60 + 10?.  In no world does it make sense that player 2 would win.  I'm sorry, but you really don't have a legitamate argument, I can' help but think your trolling.  This also only applies as long as the creature has 5 or less hp.   If its 6 abyss crawlers vs 4 crawlers + lightning, then it means that the person keeps an extra crawler than you, 5>4.  (simple math). 

[Atico]

Yours arguments are good only in situation, when I can put all cards on field in one time. In normal game You put 1st creature, I kill it and put my 1st creature. You need probably few turns to put next creature (1-3 turns) and it is time when I have advantage. You put next creature and I kill it/use Rewind/use BB etc and put my 2nd creature. In first part of game I have 1-2 creatures more than You. It is big advantage. So please don't say that Lighting gives 5 damage for HP Status. It is only very situational skill. Lighting kills creatures - it is the main skill. When Lighting will hit only HP status then You will be right.
Problem is bigger when I have something like QS. Then You can never (or it is very difficult) put next big creature.
Why people think that Rewind is too powerful? Because it can hit all creatures and You lose one draw. They don't know that Lighting or BB effect is the same powerful as Rewind.

But... People like this. People like destroying. They don't like tactic, strategy. Only fast hit, big damage for opponent and win.
It is funny when I see that they want to nerf SoW, which gives +4/0 (because then can't do what they like - destroy it without shield), but they didn't see problem with 0/-5 card It is funny when it is easier to destroy opponent creature than protect Yourself.

I understand Your opinions. But please try understand also me. CC, PC are very powerful, not all elements has got it. People didn't play the most Fire or Darkness only because they like red or black colour. They didn't play Rainbows only because they didn't know which elements choose. All we know how strength is PC and CC. Why people didn't use Shockwave as often as Lighting? Because it is huge difference between -4 and -5 attack. Why RoF is popular card but Thunderstorm no? It shows which cards are too powerful (maybe not OP as one card, but OP with duo/trio/rainbows - especially QS).

[ARTHANASIOS]

Guys, no offense, but this is Reverse Time/Rewind thread and I feel you've gone out of topic and you discuss about CC and PC in general but you don't even mention RT anymore. So, please, return back to RT discussion...