The Unholy Tomb dilemma: Tempo and Nora Gen

I thought it was just you and pede going at it.

I assume you meant the opportunity thingy and the nora mine comparison. I think it's largely because UT allows you to win most drawn out games, which is why it feels like you can afford to give up fonts and map control earlier on in the game without having to worry as much. The scaling aspect is really attractive. The loss of life is also incredibly potent vs bgs that don't have a lot of self healing or AoE healing.

As kalasle mentioned, it plays right into the FW playstyle. You build up until you reach critical mass and then push to win. The early game is more forgiving and your lategame is beastly. I would still run it in other lategame oriented bgs in other factions, but some factions would definitely make less use of it. FS comes to mind, the UT would compensate for their lack of lategame, but they'd still focus more on the early game.

 

Fair enough. My idea was, that if counters to Nora Generators don't feel rewarding enough, we might want to buff the things that get countered by it.
But there are other options as well:

• [Different reward]: More counters like Resonance, that don't attack the source itself. I.e. Backlash could damage all opposing Champions within 5 spaces instead.
• [Lesser Risk]: Combine counters, i.e. make one ability out of Rebuke and Backlash that only work against few things. I.e. Rebuke could damage something that generates AP or Nora within X spaces for Y times the amount of Nora/AP generated.

 

This would indirectly weaken theme decks with little access to either generation or generation counters. So spreading it would have to be either extremely liberal or there'll be white spots.

 

dude you play league hmu raxty on NA ogdrolaf on LAN

 

I can't highlight this enough. It's absolutely miserable playing against this rune with combo / trickdecks where i'm not going through the list of what a bg is "supposed to have".

As for the discussion going on here i've never been a fan of balancing via counters, as that only continues to serve to restrict bg building. All this gotta add detection, backlash, shatter, healing, magic damage, etc... crap is getting really old and it homogenizes bgs (think of how many times you've added the same detection rune in every bg solely because it has detection). I'm not convinced UT needs to say as a global passive damage and nora gen engine rune. From a fun to play perspective it's a completely obnoxious rune on the level of old Ruubgaal, and from a balance perspective, a 35 nora rune should not be able to force your opponent into an agressive playstyle.

Runes deemed to obnoxious or gamebreaking to exist in the past have been completely altered or banned (exile, ToB, last stand, the farm) so I don't see why this rune has to stay the way it is. Pleashe, have a heart and change UT.

 

It's stronger... Unlike Deep miner nerfs

 

I think ancient implications is a misleading example as I see it as a flexibility spell that has multiple purposes. Backlash / Majestic / Purified plus a refund clause which is probably the least beneficial of the effects. Yes I would not classify it as a good counter although champion based backlash, overload, or other relic kills would qualify better in my opinion.

I think the change was a success in that it is less impactful and I find it harder to crutch on it when you're down fonts.

With the nora decreased and the damage part becoming more noticeable comparatively I'd like to say that 1 dmg global is attrition pure and simple which people tend not to like even if it does represent a long term opportunity cost. Yes if this is placed turn one and left unattended it will deal a good amount of damage but it takes X rounds to get there. It can seem like a lot assuming unbounded rounds but most games last what... around 12-15 rounds?

 

since i started playing one of those BGs a few days before the nerf. i find this entirely necessary. i was able to use an infinite loop of bile zombie polluted martyr and death guard to stall for 40 turns whilst chipping 3 lol per turn with tome and tomb

 

I hardly ever play on NA.

 

It's almost like you don't live here or something, I swear

 

they play cyclops shaman and it pops?

 

No one deserves to be banned more than MW right now. He made a bet and lost.

As for the original post, I agree with Pyro's assessment that the damage put out by tomb is greatly under estimated.

If we divided Tomb into two relics, what would people be willing to pay for a 20 HP relic that just caused 1 loss of life to enemies every round? What about a relic that has 20 HP that generated 1 nora for every enemy champion in play?

For the first relic, I'd say FW would be willing to pay 25 nora, but other factions wouldn't use it as the slow attrition wouldn't fit their playstyles. Any cheaper and it gets to the 1:1 HP:Nora ratio that gets complaints. The second relic, I'd say 25-30 nora in any faction.

 

I think FW players would use it, but after trying it they would ask for it to have 12 HP or so for 20 nora instead.

 

If it stacked, yeah, I would run 2 and (try to) make it a deck. At 25 unique, eh. Probably would give it a go, but wouldn't be happy about it.

 

If it just did loss of life I could see it as a possible inclusion alongside festering wounds If I was a player who didn't have access to toh or dark favor.

In other words no I probably wouldn't run it.

If it was 20 Nora then it starts getting into the having other benefits such as being contesting fodder. Maybe put it in a chop bg.

 

- Compare it to "ALL" other 35 nora relics and then decide what a relic has to do at that cost to be playable.

 

I disagree but that's just how much weight I put on a childish bet on the forums.

was fun but I think it got taken way too far.

 

Nobody forced him to do it. How is that childish? It's a challenge match, that happens in every sport/game. It created a lot of hype about Pox during a time when the forums and game were dead.

Lighten up.

 

actually you all forced him to do it, he said numerous times he no longer wanted to do it after the fw runes changed, you called him out in threads, dozens of people harassed him about it and then after he went through with it anyway you get the devs to ban him for saying something in passing.

honestly I agree with him, it was shitty to force him into a match after the deck he made the challenge with was destroyed, ultimately I think you'd of won anyway, but that's just my opinion on it.

seems like a combination of peer pressure and harassment, it seems childish to me, it was fun to see it happen, he was a good sport about it but the ban seems too much to me.

 

If you talk a lot of smack to me and say you're better than me, you better own up to it. Easy as that.