Archive talk:N/W Death's Shadow

I vote for change to N/D. Can use crippling sweep. Cheaper, faster recharge and more effective. You lose your offhand but can use mystic regen. Drop all SR and put in earth... Drop taste of pain for it. frvwfr2  (talk···contributions) 04:57, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

Can you please explain the delete tage with a little more depth please Tycn? This isn't my kind of DA bomber, but I'd like to get rid of our bad Unfavored builds before we start weeding out the bad Vetted ones. We will have a new vetting system up shortly, and I think that we should leave this to be re-evaluated then. Besides, I ran this build for a few CM in Aspenwood. Everyone lawl'd at the meleemancer, but it worked out alright. Fun fun back in Factions. Any reason why this desperately needs to be deleted ASAP? - Krowman    08:39, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

It just doesn't work as well as any of the other DA bombers; it's pretty much a waste of attribute points to go meleemancer, and there's better snares than Hamstring. Still, I was probably a bit too hasty with the tag, getting rid of it for now. Tycn 08:57, 29 May 2007 (CEST)


 * This build is good... lol. I mean hell, it's favored... we aren't deleting favored builds. Yeah, it's kinda a joke, but believe it or not, it works. Try it out in some small arena, like HB... [[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] frvwfr2  (talk···contributions) 13:23, 29 May 2007 (CEST)


 * I know it works, but other builds work better in almost every possible way. Tycn 07:42, 30 May 2007 (CEST)
 * These can be fun to play around with in unimportant venues (i.e. CM), but Necros are better with SS, RM etc imo. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   07:44, 30 May 2007 (CEST)
 * * sigh* But if this is vetted, why not Hamstorm! Hamstorm ftw! Readem (talk *pvxcontribs ) 07:48, 30 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Zomg, we should create a Hamstorm build. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   07:50, 30 May 2007 (CEST)
 * My sentiments exactly. Now get to work :p. Readem (talk *pvxcontribs ) 07:51, 30 May 2007 (CEST)

Viability in Question
Reasons: Readem (talk *pvxcontribs ) 16:30, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Seriously Outdated
 * Hamstring, nuff' said

Better snares availiable now, Touch got duped (no need for swordsmanship now). Could just archive or merge with a N/A (not the ewish SP one though). Swiftslash \\  05:56, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Siphon Speed I say! Shido 21:25, 12 July 2007 (CEST)