Are we OK with decks having no champions!?

I'm asking this because obviously part of the game designers intent was to have decks be built around champions stronger effects. As of now, I am seeing plenty of decks do extremely well with absolutely no champions in them - and it's more than I'd honestly even like to see. What's everyone's thoughts on this?

As an example, here is a video I made of a very common Ionia/Demacia deck running around right now with zero champs: Ionia/Demacia Deck. 

Personally I think the problem is that hyper aggro is too easy to get away with.

Other than that, if you wanna miss out on some of the cool abilities champions can grant, that's your loss for building a champion-less deck, and as your opponent, I wouldn't really mind.

Champions are just like any other unit only more powerful. Whatever kind of deck you build there is bound to be a champion that fits. There is no good deck with zero champions that wouldn't be better with a champion.

You can add braum to control SI freljord, and fiora or Lucian to the elusive demacia/Ionia I think people don't put champions in decks.. Cause they don't have them. 

Quote From SchitJustWorks

I'm asking this because obviously part of the game designers intent was to have decks be built around champions stronger effects. As of now, I am seeing plenty of decks do extremely well with absolutely no champions in them - and it's more than I'd honestly even like to see. What's everyone's thoughts on this?

 

As an example, here is a video I made of a very common Ionia/Demacia deck running around right now with zero champs: Ionia/Demacia Deck. 

In general, I think they're fine--I personally think they taste bland, but I don't have anything inherently against them.  Specifically regarding the elusive-buff deck from your video: I suspect your success is most attributed to elusive being more powerful than the developers intended to the point where any of the existing Ionia or Demacia champions would be a downgrade right now.  It's very easy to envision a world where sneaking in nexus damage from elusives isn't as reliable  (e.g., maybe they make a new rule where all the attack damage from elusives is halved, or maybe they add in allies that can block elusives but don't attack as elusive), and all of a sudden you are considering adding either Zed and Lucian for additional early pressure or Garen and Lux to give you some late-game value.

The other champion-less deck I read about pre-launch but haven't actually seen in-game was Swim's Frejlord / Shadow Isles control deck.  Looking online, it looks like he's updated it to include Braum, so I'm guessing even he is now thinking its better to squeeze in some champions if you can make them fit.

I think you could actually broaden this question a little to allow for a more engaging conversation. What should champions be?

KANSAS above is entirely correct - what champions are, at present, are simply more powerful followers. They have some limited immunity to effects (since some of the more powerful effects target followers only), but otherwise they're just mana efficient or have powerful effects on them.

Is this enough? The vast majority of current decks run at least one champion in them, but typically that champion isn't particularly thematically associated with the deck - most Elusive decks run Braum, for example, not for any particular association with Freljord (they're mostly Ionian), or Poros (lel), but because he's a strong unit. 

The question would then be further expanded by asking that if this isn't enough, then what would be done to change it? Hypothetically, my immediate response would be to impose restrictions on what decks can have champions in them - for example, Braum might require a minimum number of Poro cards and/or Freljord cards before he can be included. And, as an incentive, buff all champions, so as to reward the player for restricting themselves.

To be absolutely clear - I'm not saying this is a good idea. Just that it's an interesting question to think about.

I also agree with KANVAS' assessment that champions are, in most respects, simply more powerful units than followers which otherwise function mostly the same way. The mere fact that Riot restricts the total number of champions in a deck should be evidence enough that they are powerful by design. However, I'm absolutely against making them even stronger - that would only reward people who invest more time/money to get the exact champions to bolster their deck strategy, and it would make good vs. bad draws more lopsided.

As for champion-less decks, I say more power to the players who build them. I don't see it as a problem at all. Yeah, champions are kind of designed to serve as thematic cornerstones for specific decks, but that should be a general guideline, not a requirement, in my opinion.

Quote From BlueSpark

I also agree with KANVAS' assessment that champions are, in most respects, simply more powerful units than followers which otherwise function mostly the same way. The mere fact that Riot restricts the total number of champions in a deck should be evidence enough that they are powerful by design. However, I'm absolutely against making them even stronger - that would only reward people who invest more time/money to get the exact champions to bolster their deck strategy, and it would make good vs. bad drops more lopsided.

As for champion-less decks, I say more power to the players who build them. I don't see it as a problem at all. Yeah, champions are kind of designed to serve as thematic cornerstones for specific decks, but that should be a general guideline, not a requirement, in my opinion.

Could not agree more with this^

Quote From TriMay

Personally I think the problem is that hyper aggro is too easy to get away with.

Other than that, if you wanna miss out on some of the cool abilities champions can grant, that's your loss for building a champion-less deck, and as your opponent, I wouldn't really mind.

theres a control deck that runs no champions tho lately its been added braum to deal with the elusives. i think its fine, and if an aggro deck runs no champions i will be happy to face it cause many aggro deck just snowball when their champion sticks and or levels up

I think this phenomenon will steadily diminish as people gain more Champions.

People are doing it now because they can get away with it (and because they lack the Champions that would fit in those decks).

In other words, it's fine, and even if it bugs you, you will probably see less of it in the future.

(I absolutely do not think Champions need to be stronger.)

Also, how do you even know whether your opponent has Champions or not? I have played entire games with a 6-Champ deck without playing a Champion. You may assume they copied a budget no-Champ list, but that is just an assumption.

Quote From FortyDust

Also, how do you even know whether your opponent has Champions or not? I have played entire games with a 6-Champ deck without playing a Champion. You may assume they copied a budget no-Champ list, but that is just an assumption.

You see each Champion at the start of the match, and at any time you can click on your opponent's deck to see it again.

I don't mind as long as it's not systematic to the best decks, otherwise it would mean champions are not impactful enough on a general manner.

You see each Champion at the start of the match, and at any time you can click on your opponent's deck to see it again.

Oh, right. I did forget about that.

Still, it's a weird thing to be bothered about!

Quote From Kinxil

I don't mind as long as it's not systematic to the best decks, otherwise it would mean champions are not impactful enough on a general manner.

A valid point. As long as there are just one or two specific popular decks in the metagame that work without champions, it doesn't prove anything regarding champions' power as a whole. If such decks become widespread, it's a different matter.