Shadow-Hunter will one hit kill 95% of the time, but only at the start of a match and only targeting the healthiest Troop
1 Like
But it doesn’t get the “numbers” of the drestroyed troop, that is the pointe where i think Devour disturbs the balance of the game.
I agree, I was just nitpicking the part about no other Troops can kill in a single hit consistently
I understand, i’ve been out of the debate because my work gets intense on the weekends so i was just pointing it to reforce my previous points at the start of this topic. Removing a troop is not a big deal, and even when Archer’s last trait triggered twice in one battle i won, but if it was Devouring triggering…
As said before if devouring an enemy would give 50% of the raw status and 100% for devouring an ally (Black Beast) it would keep some survivability for Maw, remove annoying/key troops (Gorgotha) but the “snowball effect” would be more counterable.
I absolutely HATE devour.
100% hate it.
I sometimes wonder if the only people that defend it are those that like using Maw 
Jokes aside, I wish it would be removed. It is the most unfair and non-strategic effect in the game. There needs to be a counter implemented or it needs to be removed. Give some troops a trait that says “Immune to devour”.
As it is right now, all it takes is one gem spawner, a few lucky gem drops, and a Great Maw to get rid of an enemy. And depending on how quickly and which troop it removed…very snow-bally. It is undoubtedly frustrating to play against…watching the AI get a lucky cascade…use the gem spawner…get full mana…whooosh there goes my heavy hitter, and now maw gets my heavy hitters stats…and my team falls apart…all in the matter of 1-3 turns… definitely frustrating to say the least.
And that is why I love Queen Mab…because I can kill Maw before he can fill up his skill. She is one of the best counters to Maw… (I hope she doesn’t get nerfed to oblivion…because I really need her to stay strong against the dreaded devourers).
1 Like
a troop with the trait immune to devour would probably not work so well. unless you are going to field 4 , person with maw will target non immune and skull spam and kill that immune troop anyhow.
but then again I do not see devour as that bad except for his 3rd trait I think it could actually be removed completely and only one troop per fight even has chance of being devoured
There was a post quite some time ago (I’m sorry I truly can’t be bothered searching for it ) in another Maw thread, where someone had an ingenious idea about ethereal troops having a trait of not being able to be ‘eaten’ due to their form. I thought the idea was quite good.
Edit: On second thought, I believe it was more of a devour ‘rule’ of not being able to eat ethereal troops rather than a trait.
if devour, place deathmark on maw
1 Like
I also mentioned that the Thorns trait on Gloomleaf should either provide devour immunity or inflict Lethal on the devouring troop, worlds worst case of indigestion 
1 Like
This is not necessarily true. Imagine a tank troop up front that has immune to devour, impervious, and stone skin. This would be an awesome troop to have out in front and would be a great counter to the third trait.
3 Likes
Thematically, I think it would make sense to change Devour so that it can’t target Big, Huge and/or Enormous troops. A too big to swallow justification.
2 Likes
true there. gorgotha with immunity would be some stopping force 
he would have to have both the skin and the immunity.
Well, that’s just kind of silly IMO. My build is pretty darn slow but it’s also good for about a 98% win rate.
People want this to not only be EASY, they want it to be FAST, too? 
Yes. Speed is an essential factor actually. There are SO MANY posts about win speed and needing to go from 4-5 minutes to 90 seconds per win. All fueled by the trophy and reward system.
I’ve proposed ideas wherein the battles have bonuses attached that can give more trophies or rewards based upon a point system. Like style points for unique events, or combo points, etc.
I understand your point, I just don’t agree with the mindset. I play games for fun, not for achievement. I realize that I’m in a (growing, unfortunately) minority, though.
3 Likes
Everyone says this, and it never makes sense. Fun is subjective. What we deem as “fun” is as broad as the universe. Finding a fast team to optimize play time is “fun” or finding a way to beat an uber team with 4 peasants is “fun”.
Video games are a multi-billion dollar business. What minority are you speaking of?
2 Likes
If you play for fun, then just… play the way you find fun. If you don’t care about trophies, etc., then you have all the freedom in the world to do what makes you happy.
3 Likes
So if 10-20% of the game can possibly counter this team, but 80%+ can’t because its so OP, we should worry about slowing down the minority? Or should be worrying about the majority whom may quit because the repetitiveness of same teams and unbeatable to them.
Some of the arguments here are crazy, The devour skill is just too strong, if there was limit to 1 hunger/devour per team per battle. This wouldn’t be an issue anymore, but to allow 1 team to never do damage to the others teams troops, but end up winning is sick. This means the meta isn’t strategy in matching gems, its strategy in “do you have the perfect cards” and “did you get lucky before they got lucky”. This is where strategy no longer exists.
I avoid these decks because its just simply bad for the game, if the meta keeps increasing where I have to skip more battles than I can play with a chance to win, then eventually people will just skip playing the game. I want to fix/stop this nasty trait/skill before it ruins the game for newcomers.
That’s becoming increasingly difficult to do due to the weekly “this troop is too strong, change it” stuff.
I have troops that I enjoy and I don’t exploit that are likely to be changed because all most people care about is the race to the top.
They certainly are and they have been for almost 30 years. Unfortunately (at least in my opinion) the gaming industry as a whole seems to be turning their focus to hyper-competitive online multiplayer at the expense of the deliberate pacing of a good single-player game. They want to cater to a younger and younger crowd, all of whom seem to have ADD and serious inferiority issues.
It’s simply a reflection of society however. Increased competition leads to an increase of exploitation which in turn leads to an increase of online bullying and whining about achievement scores (or lack thereof).
It is what it is.
4 Likes