Fireball simply because it's less situational and doesn't have the <=12 health req,
I don't think you read the OP correctly, or rather, interpreted what you read correctly.
He's asking "why" it's better, not "in what ways" is it better.
Fair enough, I have bias towards Fireball since I use it heavily in my Freeze mage deck. I imagine my reply for "why" it's better would echo what you said about "direct damage being a Mage thing." Although my point on Mortal Strike's situational req. still stands. If there was a 4 mana Warrior spell card has the exact same text, it would be used in favor of Mortal Strike.
So many clueless people in this thread. However, I believe you can't compare those spells in a vacuum since they belong in whole different toolboxes.
I wouldn't go that far and cynically say clueless. I know both spells are from different decks, but from the context of the first post, you can just assume that the comparison is just made for the sake of damage from cards of the same mana cost.
So many clueless people in this thread. However, I believe you can't compare those spells in a vacuum since they belong in whole different toolboxes.
Yeah, exactly. Power would have to be taken out of other parts of warrior's kit to balance it with Fireball. Mages don't have Brawl, weapons, charge minions, and lots of way to buff attack.
Yes if you compare the cards and forget their classes, fireball is much better and there is no reason to ever use mortal strike. However remember warriors have much better removal because weapons with their durability are able to take out more threats/deal more damage in the long run when compared to spells. Mage needs better direct damage spells or the class won't have a niche and thus would be pointless. Warrior has great removal but needs to go through taunts. (handlock... ;_;) Mortal strike is sometimes a great utility card for finishing off targets behind taunt. However if mortal strike was as good as fireball, warrior would kinda be basically mage but with weapons. Just like in ANY other game, different classes are differentiated by how they approach the same task differently.
If mortal strike was the same as fireball the question would be
I think people are looking at this the wrong way, yes mage direct damage is their thing, but every class card that do similar things are all balanced to be about the same. They have different strengths and weaknesses but they're balanced to be pretty equal.
Targeted removal is a good example of this Assassinate is the baseline. 5 mana remove a minion, but lots of other classes have similar cards with different prices but flavor.
Siphon Soul 1 mana more but heals you, Polymorph and Hex 1 mana less but they leave a minion, Deadly Shot 2 mana less but its random. Shadow word Death and Pain, cheaper but they have restrictions, [cardNaturalize[/card] much cheaper but has a nasty draw back.
Whether or not you think some of those cards are balanced, there is always a penalty for being cheaper or difference in the cards. No one is asking for Mortal Strike to be identical to Fireball, but right now its obviously just a worse version of Fireball. Buffing the damage of while low on health would make sense for the rest of the balance between classes. If it did like 8 damage when low on health it'd be balanced and more in line with the rest of the games balance.
I was always under the impression that every card has to be balanced based on its mana cost, independent of other cards and hero powers. If Fireball is balanced then clearly Mortal Strike is not.
Mortal Strike would be balanced if it was "deal 5 damage or 7 if under 12HP"? makes the restrictions better and puts the average dmg in sync with fireball
I was always under the impression that every card has to be balanced based on its mana cost, independent of other cards and hero powers. If Fireball is balanced then clearly Mortal Strike is not.
Not sure where you got that impression. Sure cards need to be balanced based on it's mana cost but not independent of other cards or hero powers. Everything must be taken into account when balancing a card, not just it's cost.
Mage's unique "ability" is that all their spells deal an extra point of damage, in order to capture the feel of mage. This is why Fireball deals 6 damage for 4, why Pyroblast originally did 10 damage for 8, and why Frostbolt has the extra freeze effect on top of the 3 damage. For all other classes the damage of spells is generally equal to the spell's cost + 1 (e.g. Arcane Shot), which is why Mortal Strike costs 4 and averages 5 damage.
Can anyone tell me why Blizzard made Fireball just plain better?
Because Warrior is not a spell based class, it's powerful with other tools. In other words, spell power for Mage (compared to Warrior)compensates its lack of Weapons and charge/puff/combo minions tendency, and so should be the cards.
If Mortal Strike should be as powerful as Fireball, then Warrior would be a much -really much- better class than Mage, taking into consideration the previously mentioned.
And that's why -for example- Druid has a spell card (Wrath) that is similar to Mage's one (Frostbolt) in damage, however, Wrath can only target minions not all characters, since it would be exceedingly powerful for a class themed to puff the mana for big creatures that at the same time can deal big spell power damage to the enemy's hero. (That's why Druid as well lack proper AoE, as having good mass removal in addition to having big creatures early on would make a super ultra powerful class above all else).
Mana cost and damage effect are only two factors out of many other factors that should be taken into consideration when determining how a card should be like.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You can't harass members who play Face Hunter, nor are they compelled to make preemptive apologies or justifications for playing it. They don't hack or crack their opponents' game, they simply play existing cards that form a specific deck. If you suck at countering Face Hunter, you should blame the designers, not the community.
Mortal Strike vs. Fireball.
Can anyone tell me why Blizzard made Fireball just plain better?
Because direct damage is a Mage thing, and should be better for Mages.
Fireball simply because it's less situational and doesn't have the <=12 health req,
I don't think you read the OP correctly, or rather, interpreted what you read correctly.
He's asking "why" it's better, not "in what ways" is it better.
Just compare pictures. It's obvious that Fireball is more powerful.
Fair enough, I have bias towards Fireball since I use it heavily in my Freeze mage deck. I imagine my reply for "why" it's better would echo what you said about "direct damage being a Mage thing." Although my point on Mortal Strike's situational req. still stands. If there was a 4 mana Warrior spell card has the exact same text, it would be used in favor of Mortal Strike.
So many clueless people in this thread. However, I believe you can't compare those spells in a vacuum since they belong in whole different toolboxes.
I wouldn't go that far and cynically say clueless. I know both spells are from different decks, but from the context of the first post, you can just assume that the comparison is just made for the sake of damage from cards of the same mana cost.
Yeah, exactly. Power would have to be taken out of other parts of warrior's kit to balance it with Fireball. Mages don't have Brawl, weapons, charge minions, and lots of way to buff attack.
This^
Because all cards should be each mirrors of each other... wait I mean the opposite of that.
Also you will notice Warrior spells are generally more costly than other classes.
Yes if you compare the cards and forget their classes, fireball is much better and there is no reason to ever use mortal strike. However remember warriors have much better removal because weapons with their durability are able to take out more threats/deal more damage in the long run when compared to spells. Mage needs better direct damage spells or the class won't have a niche and thus would be pointless. Warrior has great removal but needs to go through taunts. (handlock... ;_;) Mortal strike is sometimes a great utility card for finishing off targets behind taunt. However if mortal strike was as good as fireball, warrior would kinda be basically mage but with weapons. Just like in ANY other game, different classes are differentiated by how they approach the same task differently.
If mortal strike was the same as fireball the question would be
Warrior vs. Mage.
Can anyone tell me why Blizzard made Warrior just plain better?
It's fine since warrior has one of the most op spells in the game, shield slam.
I think people are looking at this the wrong way, yes mage direct damage is their thing, but every class card that do similar things are all balanced to be about the same. They have different strengths and weaknesses but they're balanced to be pretty equal.
Targeted removal is a good example of this Assassinate is the baseline. 5 mana remove a minion, but lots of other classes have similar cards with different prices but flavor.
Siphon Soul 1 mana more but heals you, Polymorph and Hex 1 mana less but they leave a minion, Deadly Shot 2 mana less but its random. Shadow word Death and Pain, cheaper but they have restrictions, [cardNaturalize[/card] much cheaper but has a nasty draw back.
Whether or not you think some of those cards are balanced, there is always a penalty for being cheaper or difference in the cards. No one is asking for Mortal Strike to be identical to Fireball, but right now its obviously just a worse version of Fireball. Buffing the damage of while low on health would make sense for the rest of the balance between classes. If it did like 8 damage when low on health it'd be balanced and more in line with the rest of the games balance.
I was always under the impression that every card has to be balanced based on its mana cost, independent of other cards and hero powers. If Fireball is balanced then clearly Mortal Strike is not.
Mortal Strike would be balanced if it was "deal 5 damage or 7 if under 12HP"? makes the restrictions better and puts the average dmg in sync with fireball
Not sure where you got that impression. Sure cards need to be balanced based on it's mana cost but not independent of other cards or hero powers. Everything must be taken into account when balancing a card, not just it's cost.
Mage's unique "ability" is that all their spells deal an extra point of damage, in order to capture the feel of mage. This is why Fireball deals 6 damage for 4, why Pyroblast originally did 10 damage for 8, and why Frostbolt has the extra freeze effect on top of the 3 damage. For all other classes the damage of spells is generally equal to the spell's cost + 1 (e.g. Arcane Shot), which is why Mortal Strike costs 4 and averages 5 damage.
Because Warrior is not a spell based class, it's powerful with other tools. In other words, spell power for Mage (compared to Warrior)compensates its lack of Weapons and charge/puff/combo minions tendency, and so should be the cards.
If Mortal Strike should be as powerful as Fireball, then Warrior would be a much -really much- better class than Mage, taking into consideration the previously mentioned.
And that's why -for example- Druid has a spell card (Wrath) that is similar to Mage's one (Frostbolt) in damage, however, Wrath can only target minions not all characters, since it would be exceedingly powerful for a class themed to puff the mana for big creatures that at the same time can deal big spell power damage to the enemy's hero. (That's why Druid as well lack proper AoE, as having good mass removal in addition to having big creatures early on would make a super ultra powerful class above all else).
Mana cost and damage effect are only two factors out of many other factors that should be taken into consideration when determining how a card should be like.
You can't harass members who play Face Hunter, nor are they compelled to make preemptive apologies or justifications for playing it. They don't hack or crack their opponents' game, they simply play existing cards that form a specific deck. If you suck at countering Face Hunter, you should blame the designers, not the community.
why does mortal strike not limit healing in some way is the real question....!? consistency is what makes things good blizz!!