Q: “If the ‘Phoenix’ card never existed, would you feel that Fire would be up to par today? Would you still be just as interested in the element without it?”
A: Yes and yes. Obviously losing phoenix would be quite a blow, but fire still has several other good damage sources, and it's control is still top tier. While the remaining creatures are all fragile, the strength of firestall would help balance fire's meta, by providing an alternative when facing high-CC decks. As for my interest in Fire, I'm kind of Kartis' opposite, in that I like fire's stalling and control more than it's speed. Losing Phoenix would be a blow to domination decks, which would be sad, but stalling would still be available in all it's imba glory, and I'd still be here.
Q: Let's suppose Immolation/Cremation is a 
card (yup, it's meant to be other but it still gives fire quanta). Could you build a %50 Fire deck with it?
A: Well, most of the famous immo decks would still be at least 50% Fire, so yes. Or if you mean exactly 50%, I would add a few basic rainbow fillers such as vamp dagger, GP, etc.
Honestly though, I'm not a huge immo fan. I'm glad it exists, since it does a lot to fill out Fire's strong presence in the meta, but as someone who prefers domin and stall decks almost exclusively over rushes, I don't make much use of it except as a denial counter.
Q: Could you create a Celsius weapon that could be equipped with Fahreneit? (Holding two weapons at once, no shield).
A:
Q: What's the scent of fire?
A: It smells yellowy-orange.
Q: Fire started very bad this war, and didn't ended up in top 3, you think it's because the nerfs or the teams adapted and countered fire?
A: I didn't participate in this last War, so my opinion on that is less informed than some. I would say that because War is hard work and can be stressful, the discouragement caused by early losses and the recent nerfs probably played a large role in the team's mediocre finish.
Q: Last War, in Round 2, Fire went 1-7. What went wrong as to the approach for that War?
A: Hmm well I wrote out several thoughts here, then deleted them. I wasn't involved in War 3, and while I can find specific issues with Fire's deckbuilding or predictions during round 2 by looking over the battle summaries, that's not enough for me to give an informed opinion on the faults of Fire's overall approach. So I'm not sure. It may be worthwhile, should I win mastership, to interview members of last year's team so that I can gain a more complete picture of the situation.
Q: Would you be willing to change your name to YoungSoot if you beat Napalm?
A: No. But were a name change feasible I would consider SootySot. In that case I would also have to pursue other masterships afterwards, in order to accumulate the whole set:
SootySot
ShinySot
ScarySot
SpaceSot
SomberSot
StableSot
SoppingSot
SpinySot
SoaringSot
StonySot
SomedaySot
StrangeSot
Q: So basically i just want to know how you are going to lead to victory next war and why you will be the best to lead. Also if you don't plan on leading War let me know this as well.
A: I would most likely choose to lead in War, and if so I would approach it with 3 goals in mind (in roughly this order of importance):
1. Provide a fun War experience for my team and all War participants.
2. Further grow the fan base for Fire.
3. Win.
My plan would be to encourage interesting and surprising decks, to pick my team with a focus on attitude and interest, and just generally show off the fun side of Fire and War. :>
Q: what element do you think is the most uncooperative with fire and why.
A: ,
,
, and
each have only a few cards that synergize well with Fire imo. I guess I'd pick Gravy as the least helpful, since Fire can already deal with most shields (momentum), has plenty of CC (oty), and already has plenty of damage (Fire Eater) so there aren't a ton of situations where adding gravy would be the best choice.
Q: also what would you do diffrently that will bring fire back into the top 3 for next war?
A: See my reply to MrBlonde above. We already know Fire has the power and versatility to win War. I'd focus on making the War experience enjoyable, and hopefully success would follow.
Q: please also show me a deck that is powerful that doesnt require firebolt/immolation/pheonix/farenheight and it must be 50% fire.
A:Hover over cards for details, click for permalink
7dg 7dg 7dg 7dm 7dm 7dm 7dr 7dr 7dr 7dr 7dr 7dr 7f2 7f2 7f2 7f2 7f2 7f2 7f2 7f2 7f2 7f2 7gr 7gr 7h2 7h2 7h2 7h2 7h2 7h2 8ppQ: With the recent nerfs to Fire, where do you believe Fire ranks in terms of raw element strength? Where do you feel it ranked beforehand?
A:I don't think the changes altered Fire's top-tier status very much.
Q: Suppose these nerfs to Fire were undone. Do you feel you could effectively lead a Fire team to the dominant performances it had?
A:Sure. War is complex and being a good general doesn't guarantee success ofc, but with the right team I'd definitely have a shot at reclaiming the forums.
Q: The amount of control, particularly creature control, that Fire possesses is tremendous. I suspect that only the newest of players are unaware of the raw power the dreaded Firestall possesses. But despite the amount of control that is exhibited by this Element alone, there are remarkably few ways of actually protecting oneself from control period, especially when many types of control are so cheap. Do you believe that the effects of control within the game is possibly too great? If you were to nerf control in one way that would not significantly imbalance the metagame, what would you change?
A: That's a huge discussion right there, but yes I would say the game might benefit from a less control-focused meta. If control were less common/cheap, it would increase the viability of combo-based decks (which are often very fun) and would generally mean that over the course of a game both players would build up stronger and stronger positions, both offensively and defensively. How would I nerf control? Well, I don't think there's a single magic-pill type change that'd perfectly diminish control's meta-role, but the idea would be to make control something that is only used strategically on the most dire threats. Raising the cost for most forms of control by a significant amount might accomplish this too a degree, since it would only be worth killing/asploding the most important targets. But ofc you'd still have to alter other cards such as dims to scale them to a low-control game.
Q: What are the first 3 things you think of when you think of the Fire Element?
A: Destruction, Intensity, and the Fahrenheit card are some of the first thoughts that came to mind.
Q: Fire's defensive methods have been elaborated on several times on the forum, with a few discussions about Fire's aggressiveness and theme supposedly coming into conflict.
Most of Fire's in-element defenses refer to destruction and damage. Do you feel there is a more defensive or passive side of Fire that exists in ETG's theme, or all Fire decks going to involve large amounts of damage one way or another?
A: Fire is never truly "passive" but that doesn't mean it must always be directly assaulting it's opponent. If left unchecked a fire can continue to grow until it become too intense to be extinguished by the usual methods. This theme of mounting intensity is already reflected in Fahren, Bolts, and the many fire-based growth creatures, but it could just as easily be a defensive theme, where if you don't douse the fire when it's small it will eventually be too big to stop.
