Firestorm deck

I fail to see what 'different space' it occupies. What you say would suggest that firestorm brings some other gameplay challanges to the table in exchange for not having to worry about the mentioned range, LOS, ortientation, movement etc. (and by that I mean challenges for the firestorm attacker, not to the defending opponent, who has a harder job than usual for the same reasons). Is it that it also hurts the attacker? With things like Resistant Hide being the most popular wizard robe in MP I wouldn't say firestorm wizards need to sacrifice much to get their build going.

If by 'different' you meant 'easier', than I would agree about it occupying a different space. Thus my logic: less to worry about = easier = broken.

Wait a second. What both of you say suggest that I can stack more armor instead of blocks? How? You have one slot for armour/robes and one for shield (excluding wizard). Are there shields that have armor associated with them? The only piece of equipment that all races and professions share and that give a chance to shift your block:armor ratio are boots, but we're talking about a difference of a card or so in a standard deck of 36 (I exclude helmets, since they don't offer blocks)! Then again, if you want to keep up with those WWEs and the fact that a firestrom wizard is running the in the OPPOSITE direction than you, than you're not left with much choice besides taking up the most mobile boots to keep up in the benny hill chase?

 

​

​

Let's say I'm only interested in getting through MP games fast, and I don't care what my ranking is really ---​

The right answer is to run a two priest setup, and resign whenever my opponent doesn't?

(Not that I'd do that of course.)

 

Disclaimer: I am not talking about firestorm in drawspam priest parties. That is its own problem that I would argue has little to do with firestorm itself. In this post I am merely discussing firestorm as a card, as an idea, as a strategy on its own.

How many resistant hides can you fit into a wizard deck? And even if you always drew one on turn one, I think firestorm is interactive. You need to move (away from your opponents). You need to have heals/blocks/pushes to recover if your opponents catch you. You need to have winds to keep distance in the first place (and winds are fickle). Your opponent can affect you with global effects. If your opponent has good armor, you're in trouble: you need ways to deal with armor. If you're ever in LoS (not unlikely what with cantrip moves or dashing wizards), you could be frozen in place. I could go on. The rules still apply to you, and you're playing a slightly different game. Yes, there's an element of chase. There's also an element of you're never going to get a victory square, so if your opponents have good defense you're on a six-turn clock. There are answers to firestorm, and their use doesn't make the game less interesting.

I'm not sure "easier" is the same as "broken." I'm also not sure that what I'm describing is "easier." I feel like there are a lot of assumptions at work here. One true statement about ease, though, is that PvP would be a much easier format, generally speaking, if firestorm weren't a card.

Oh, no no no. I wasn't saying that you can stack more armor instead of blocks. I don't know where that came from. But there are lots of different armors. Some armors give frenzy aura. Some armors give reliable mail. Some robes give magic aura. Some robes give resistant hide. Some divine armors give inspirations. Some divine armors give holy armor or shimmering mail. I think people generally try to load their armor slots with cool effects or cards that amplify their own offensive strategies, and my point about armor was that firestorm can easily be mitigated by armor selection. Also, if you get boots with good armor on them, like Quellic's (and yes, they're epic or something, so maybe a bad example), then whether or not you can catch the enemy wizards becomes less relevant: their firestorm does nothing. A good common pair of boots that I love a lot is Black Iron Boots: immovable stops WWE, quick step closes gaps and gives your ranged characters LoS, hardy mail's effective against firestorm and other low-damage effects. You can also increase the effective # of armors in your deck by using more traits.

There are counters, there are items and cards that interact with firestorm in good ways. I think if firestorm remains strong after draw gets nerfed, those items will see more play. The meta will adjust. The game is nascent, and firestorm gives players something cool and themed to play and to play against. It is interesting and fun to have it as an option and as an opponent.

 

I like this post a lot, being a long time MtG player (we sure have a lot of them on these here boards). Flaxative basically said everything I wanted to say, and more. Plus now I have another deckbuilding idea (Black Iron Boots).

A huge part of the fun of playing CCGs, for me at least, is figuring out the meta and adjusting to beat the most dominant strategy, if there is one. At the 1100-1200 level that I play at, the meta is still pretty diverse. Firestorm decks, if not powered by a decent draw engine, usually fizzle out. Even those that have the 2 priest draw engine don't seem to go off very often - usually taking 3 to 4 turns to goldfish, which is probably one turn too long against the typical 1/2 warrior aggro/ramp archetype in this tier.

NB: 1 warrior is usually some sort of ramp or board control strategy. 2 warriors is usually aggro - heading for your squishiest meatbag and pounding them flat. Take these guidelines with a pinch of salt, though.

 

Couldn't disagree more.

Played 3 games today. All versus firestorm (1350-1400). Although I won I still hated every minute of it. It's like that every day. Somehow I don't see how the game benefits from firestorm. Quite the opposite, the effective number of competitive builds out there narrowed not expanded thanks to firestorm. People are always on the lookout for cheesy, simple but effective builds and firestorm perfectly fits that description. Well, it seems it's time for me to wait for the 'meta to adjust' whenever that will happen.

 

If firestorm wins, its opponents will edit their builds.
If firestorm loses, firestorm players will edit their builds.
That is the meta adjusting itself.
And if you—and many others—continue to beat firestorm decks, and if what you said is true, and people are always on the lookout for "cheesy, simple but effective builds," then maybe those people will look elsewhere once firestorm fails them.

How is the number of competitive builds narrowed by firestorm?

Give me examples of builds that are otherwise competitive, but because of firestorm can't be played at any of the rating ranges at which firestorm is played.

Edit: p.s. and remember that we're not talking about firestorm with drawspam.

 

I built a firestorm deck. I played a few matches, winning most of them. I even went toe-to-toe with another firestorm deck today, which was extremely interesting. I will admit that it seems a bit cheese, but getting the right gear to run it may take a while, which is one cost. The thing I don't understand is the whining and, in some cases, absolute vitriol against it. I was hurled quite a few expletives. You guys get so butthurt about a game. If you're not having fun, don't play. If firestorm rankles you that much, build a firestorm-killing deck and go on a witch hunt. Quit crying about it though.

 

haha, it's really one of the most polarizing games I've ever played, some people can be really nasty for sure if they decide your build is wrong which is certainly funny when you think about it. really a "first world problem" if ever there was one.
you think you got it bad? try playing 3 priests next time

 

In practice, when you go to play MP at higher elo you see firestorm being played more often than anything else (as part of a draw deck or not), from my experience at least. Thus, the variability of builds currently in play is narrowed and the game gets boring. It's typical - give a card which is in line with others, you're increasing the options available. Give a card which is clearly cheesy and everyone will start use it. Did the variability increase? In theory yes, but in practice majority of people will end up using the cheesy cards, so you're seeing a narrower scope of competitive builds in play. Don't get me wrong, it was even refreshing the first 50 times when I played against it. Now it got out of control and will get even worse with time as more and more people will manage to complete their firestorm decks. While we can question each others arguments (or go as low as to call me butthurt instead of joining the discussion with constructive feedback) there is one thing which is unquestionable and it's the bland and boring state of the current meta, where draw decks are not the only one to blame.

So it's firstorm, anti-firestorm or GTFO? Thanks for giving me so much choice, I'm overwhelmed. CH is so young and it's already turning to rock, paper, scissors?

What I loved about the game was the variety. The unexpected. Where can I move? Will I get in range of spells? Can I afford ending a turn facing this direction? What if he has X or Y or Z? Will he/she attack my frontliner? Will he/she try to sprint and flank my wizard? Can I prevent it? New hand each round which makes you evaluate the dynamic - you may have been all aggro the round before, but now you need to go into defence because of lady luck. New strategic decisions to be made and try to understand what's the idea behind opponents deck, how to break it. Tough decisions every move.

How does it look while playing against firestorm?

3 steps to crack opponents tactic:

Are there
1) dwarfs?
2) at least 1 wiz?
3) nobody moved forward on round 1?

It's firestorm.

3 steps to play against firestorm:

1) Go forward.
2) Don't discard armor.
3) Place one dude on VS.

Win.

I have never ever said that firestorm is unbeatable. What I said is that's it boring and cheesy.

 

I've said it before, Card Hunter MP *will* turn into rock, paper, scissors -- it's really just a matter of how many competitivly viable builds there are once everything shakes out. I'm guessing there will be 6-12 really viable builds, each with their own well-known optimal gear choices and well-known sub-optimal gear choices.

 

I should clarify a little. Your MP winning percentage will be 50% regardless.

"Optimal" builds will be those that will maximize your ranking. Anything else will be playing for "fun" and will result in a lower ranking.

 

For the record, piotras, I did not call you butthurt, nor do I think you are butthurt. I'm sorry if my internet tone has been even mildly abrasive, but it is not my intention; I disagree with you, not disrespect you

I'm a little disappointed that you didn't give actual examples of parties that are viable without firestorm but unviable with it, because I think that would have been far more useful in this debate.

I've played PvP at fairly high ratings (I've been up and down the 1300s over the past week, and played my share of 1400-1600 players due to being paired up), and my experience is not that firestorm is played "more than anything." Drawspam is played more than anything but I feel like I see more step warriors than firestorm wizards. Of course, I don't play hundreds of games per day so my sample size may be inadequate and my anecdotal data nonrepresentative.

You're not using it. I'm not using it. Okay that's not entirely true, I'm running an item on my wizard that has one copy of firestorm on it. But that's because it's a tokenless arcane item that gives me something else I want. The firestorm is incidental haha. Anyway, "everyone will use it" is clearly hyperbolic, and again, I do think there are responses to firestorm, and if firestorm starts losing a bunch "everyone" will look elsewhere. Unless they're content farming noobs at low ratings, but like, what can you do about that? Smurfing is smurfing.

I think the guy was saying that if you particularly hate firestorm players you can build a party that punishes them and then go around punking them for fun. We all know you can beat a firestorm build with a variety of builds. It's hardly rock, paper, scissors... it's just that if you feel like raining on firestorm players you can choose to do so. You can also beat them without sacrificing the integrity of any number of other party configurations.

There you go. Doesn't require a special build. Firestorm players will have to adjust so that they don't just lose to this basic strategy. Then this strategy will have to change (or firestorm will hit its limits and be marginalized). I DO think the meta will adjust, piotras, I just think it might take some time. Time in which you and others need to keep showing firestorm players that they need to make their parties better to compete It's a process, it really is. And we know it works—at least in theory—from seeing MtG evolve over the last twenty years. But we don't have that many people playing that much Card Hunter right now, so it's going to take a while.

 

Firestorm is just a convenient finisher for the combo draw deck. How often do you see multiwizard firestorm decks?

 

I actually tried running a two wizard, one priest firestorm deck for a bit. I found it to be much less effective than using two priests to generate draws. Of course, I might not have all the firestorms needed to make it viable; I had a total of 8 cards spread among my two wizards. However, it seemed that the major issue with two wizards/one priest was not the lack of firestorms, but rather the lack of heals and protection from self-inflicted damage. Unless you draw hides, you are pretty hurt.

On another note, I ran into a few folks who were heavily armored. They made mincemeat of my firestorm attacks. People, stop complaining about cardhunter's version of noob tubing.

 

I witnessed a situation yesterday where a guy running a 3 priests drawspam deck said "boring" and quit after 1 turn (no cards other than movement used) because he thought I was running a control/WW deck as I use 2 wizards. He clearly wasn't concerned about firestorm because I actually moved towards him (and because his draw deck doesn't have a problem dealing with it). The irony of a priest drawspam team calling someone else boring and that being supposedly why they're quitting the match was not lost on me.

 

Yeah, and having multiple priests means more draw effects to get to that hide faster.

 

Same here mate it wasn't aimed at you but the people that did 'take part' in the conversation in such a way.

I didn't because I never claimed it works that way. What I said was the more popular some deck become, the smaller variation of deck is actually observed in practice.

Sure, I'm also playing my 3-6 games a day every other day, so I might be off too, it's just my personal experience.

I actually do use it on one of my many experimental builds. I got Staff Of The Inferno on my dedicated smoke bomb wizard because I like the traits and it has a few Ember Bursts, which work well when it comes to penetrating smoke bomb (i also used a legendary ember burst staff at the time). I rarely use it out of dislike and since I don't specialise in it, but it won me a few games when I ended up with it in my had and all I needed to win was to finish off some almost-dead, escaping elf or wizard or something. It felt very cheap, they used their last few moves/magics to run away and hide from LoS to the other part of the map or to get some heals from a priest and than BAM - their dead. As if the CCG-ness of CH took over for a second pretending that it never was a boardgame hybrid.

I think that guy shows perfectly what's in the head of some firestorm users. Someone who "admit that it seems a bit cheese, but getting the right gear to run it may take a while" so he will defend it no matter what, because he invested in his cheesy build and "played a few matches, winning most of them" what pleases him. So sorry, but I will not take what he says seriously, especially that he then goes on to offending me and others who oppose firestorm.

I didn't say it requires a special build to counter it. All I said that it dumbs down the game. CH is equally a boardgame as it is a CCG, so MtG references are not fully valid in here. There are firestorm players who don't want to work on their builds, they want simple solutions to win and firestorm is exactly that (in my eyes), given you can afford money or time to get the loot and read a bit on the forums to make it work (@lemonpips 8 cards across 2 wizards is 11%+ of firestorm in your wiz decks, sorry but you're a bit short to call it a firestorm deck).


Anyway, you know my opinion and it looks like we're completely on the opposite sides when it comes to the core of all of it. But I always enjoy a good discussion and respect those who can come up with valid arguments, so thanks. I would be sad myself to see firestorm go (which won't happen I guess) as far as build diversity goes, but I would love to see it tweaked, like given range (even big one, but still range), which would give another layer of complexity which is kinda expected from a boardgame. I would play it myself with some wallbuilding/basher combo, now that would be sweet. Right now it's just bland.

 

Piotras, you don't know anything about me but what you read in this forum. I put together firestorm cards to see what the fuss was about and play around with it. I never wrote, nor intended to imply, that I was going to build, play, and defend a firestorm deck no matter what; you inferred it. I came on the forum to ask a couple of questions. I received some answers, put together what I had, experimented, and wrote a bit about my experiences. I will readily concede that I might not have the appropriate deck to call a firestorm deck. That's fine; I was interested in information, not stroking my ego by waxing the floor with 12-year olds, using a lame build. What I soon learned from my brief play experience and from reading the forums is that many people hate the strategy (and, seemingly, the people who play it). However, the overall issue appears pretty simple to me. First, we need to operationalize the term "broken." What does that mean? Supposing that it means that the strategy offers an unfair advantage (which, in turn, should be operationalized), it doesn't appear that firestorm decks are "broken." From what I've read (and correct me if I'm wrong), you and many others have no problem beating firestorm decks; there are ways to mitigate and negate their effectiveness. Unless we have hard data, recording results and patterns over many matches, it's difficult to say what is and isn't broken. It seems to me that you're just bored by the playstyle.......oh, whatever man. I really don't care. But I honestly have no idea how I "offended" you.