Faithless (-3 nora)?

True, me too.
But, its not something to choose. I mean, not a single champ has it in their upgrades that you can choose. Champ is either Faithless or not. Therefore I think the idea is good (solves the problem of being unable to target itself).

Edit: Existence of Inquisition means it is not this simple though.

 

Or, you know, it's absolutely fine as it is.

This thread only exists because the creator plays nothing but Vothsair Ireguard superchamp decks of various flavours.

Hey guess what, if you use one of the 12 faithless champions in the game as the centrepiece of your absolutely garbage gimmick decks then yeah, faithless seems pretty punishing!

Not to mention the fact that all the people who are indulging this stupid suggestion and suggesting changes are completely overlooking the fact that Ironfist use faithless as an important debuff in their decks.

 

I would like to have Unequippable at the current cost of -5 Nora on almost every champion in my BG. So?

And if Faithless only reduced spell presence not eliminated it altogether, as was suggested, I could agree to a higher negative Nora cost, like -5 Nora or something in that range.

 

That's a valid counterpoint.

 

Yeah and its kinda hard to use that debuff (inquisition) with one exception, Hahndor Memorial, but on the other hand it is really really good on doing it.

 

I was able to get to 1500 rating with the Vothsair deck and even beat you with it once. So it cannot be absolutely garbage deck. Taking into account that you have 5 to 10 times more experience playing this game than I do, it makes your statement a load of biased crap.

PS. I could call every other theme, rune, or playstyle in this game a gimmick. Worms — gimmick; skele spam — gimmick; FW loss of life ability spells and equipment — gimmick, etc., etc. But I do not go around and tell people that their decks are absolutely garbage gimmick decks.

 

Been playing for ten years and still forget about Faithless on my old Ireguards at least once per match.

I agree with the post that faithless disabling equips is non intuitive and I usually forget that too. Immediately after I move my Ireguard out of the deployment zone.

All in all, I'm rubbish, but I do like those nice big Ireguards and I wouldn't make Faithless any bigger a discount.

It's fine.

 

Yes it can, because I drew badly and am terrible at this game. One match will never mean a deck is good or bad - especially when it comes to gimmick decks.

Also your deck is certainly a gimmick deck, if you like it or think i'm wrong about how good it is then you are obviously entitled to that opinion, but you can't dispute that you have a 1-trick gimmick deck.

 

Gimmick decks, on the other hand, can be quite fun.

My personal fave is the UD FW, FW SHRINE, 2x
Ireguard plus tempest crown supported by inkblight witch, elsari bazaar, cleric of unrest, ark of the elsari and elsari helm.

Wait... You have SPELLS? RANGED?

You might call it a three trick gimmick deck.

Much fun but rather gimmicky.

 

You have a current rank of 45 and a rating of 1939. And it says that your highest rank was 6. You can't be that bad. (And by the way, out of 3 or 4 times I lost to you, 1 was when my laptop froze/crashed. I believe in that match the victory could go either way.)

PS. You also have to separate deck from the player's skill. My knowledge of the game is quite poor and skill is average, yet this deck got me to above 1500 rating. So the deck itself couldn't be that bad.

 

Deck isnt that bad, its just one dimensional. Top players don't have too much trouble with it, but it stomps weaker players.

But can we please end this thread, faithless is fine.

Unequippable being -5 is definitely too high of a discount though. That's the real discussion. (Edit: if it is -5 as @fogandsteel said - I haven't checked).

 

http://s-qpoxdb.rhcloud.com/ability/0814

 

I am pretty bad, but whatever. Despite the fact i've been around forever i'm also massively inexperienced compared to most good players so it is quite tough. I've only got about 900 ranked games under my belt whereas it's not uncommon for people up here to have 5k+

It's because superchamp decks have always taken very little skill to play, and will offer you free wins versus inexperienced/bad players and versus decks that either draw very badly or are lacking in ways to handle superchamps. Essentially, superchamp decks suck almost universally unless they are broken.

 

unequippable is generally not to discount nora costs though. It's more to make sure super/weird champs dont get too broken with equipment combos.

 

True, good point.

 

Man i've lost more than one game assuming I could mandate on my rip demon. awkward.

 

Counter:attack melee Demon would be a perfect candidate for unequippable unfortunately

 

Woah, and some have played 10 years. Thats a really long time and a lot of games. Simply amazing.

Because there is Inquisition, I agree that we should keep it as it is. About unequippable: it is similar in some way. It doesn't exist as an upgrade. Which means, whatever the cost is only matters for developers creating runes. Or actually it matters when you choose the runes that you include in your bg. But not more than that.

 

You know, i dont even think it would be that busted. You dont see anyone complaining about the demonbarb spider that can get demon shield and has reflexes 3

Though that may just be because no one plays arthropods

 

Compared to those numbers, I guess I am almost a complete noob.