People say that tanks deal a lot of damage, which is a lie

YumaS2Astral·Jun 13, 2015·14 votes·2,724 views

Tanks actually deal little damage. At least when compared to a bruiser, mage or assassin, their damage is very small. Combine with the fact that they aren't going to build AP/AD/penetration, and their damage, which is already small, fall off very hard.

What peharps is happening is that people are using squishy champions. When you are squishy, even that small amount of damage is enough to kill you. After all, tanks have good base damage. Their lack of magic penetration doesn't matter if you don't have magic resistance (most tanks deal magic damage with their abilities) as then they can chunk off a large amount of your HP.

Investing in an early , , , or even , can make trading against tanks much easier, and can make surviving against them during a fight easier too.

Don't forget that most tanks need to come close to deal damage, too. As such if you are a mage/ADC, it is extremely important to kite the tank, otherwise it doesn't matter if you have magic resistance against them.

On a side note, for ADCs: if you are taking damage from their , this probably means that they invested very early in that item. Thus, the tank doesn't have a lot of HP and/or magic resistance. As such, your mage can deal huge amounts of damage to them. After all, Thornmail is ridiculously good against ADCs, but completely useless against AP mages.

98 Comments

ReikkenJun 13, 201523 votes

Tanks DO do a lot of damage. ...by virtue of damaging multiple people at once and staying alive to do the damage for a long period of time.

Dunkrius2gJun 13, 20153 votes

Then you have to deal with % health. That is the only reason why people say tanks do lots of damage. And if they have 40% CDR and the fight lasts for like 20secs... Then that is scary. But ADC can life steal and what not so it is fine tho.

Mecha MaIphiteJun 13, 20154 votes

If the fight lasts for 20 seconds the enemy team probably is full of tanks as well.

JustMyBassCannonJun 13, 20155 votes

People say that tanks deal a lot of damage, which is a lie

Rammus ult: 520/1040/1560 +240% AP

Yup, that's not a lot of damage. In an AoE. Over 8 seconds. Not interrupting any other abilities.

Critmaster GarenJun 13, 20156 votes

{quoted}

Rammus ult: 520/1040/1560 +240% AP

Yup, that's not a lot of damage. In an AoE. Over 8 seconds. Not interrupting any other abilities.

why are you sitting in that small area for 8 seconds?

do you want me to list how much fortunes or lucians ult deal in an ideal scenario?

Meep ManJun 13, 20154 votes

[{quoted}](name=Critmaster Garen,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=YBh1JiuU,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2015-06-13T15:51:58.262+0000)

why are you sitting in that small area for 8 seconds?

do you want me to list how much fortunes or lucians ult deal in an ideal scenario?

Better yet, Fiddlesticks in general.

JustMyBassCannonJun 13, 20152 votes

While Fiddlesticks is a perfect example of a champion whose core damage is front-loaded into their ultimate, it's also worth noting that I didn't claim Rammus dealt the most damage. Just that he deals barely less than Fiddlesticks' ultimate over a slightly longer duration...with CC that forces enemies to stay in range and a ton of innate defense.

SammystormJun 13, 20151 votes

Are you seriously going to compare the damage on fiddle's ult to rammus's ult? They are not comparable. Fiddle's ult does leaps and bounds more and he also has a form of hard cc that keeps a target in range. The reason Fiddle's ult does more is because he builds damage. So rammus deals less damage but is harder to kill. Fiddle deals more damage but is easy to kill. Everything working as intended it seems.

JustMyBassCannonJun 14, 20152 votes

{quoted}

Are you seriously going to compare the damage on fiddle's ult to rammus's ult?

Why not?

They are not comparable. Fiddle's ult does leaps and bounds more

Fiddlesticks' ultimate deals 625/1125/1625 +225% AP over 5 seconds.

Rammus' ultimate deals 520/1040/1560 +240% AP over 8 seconds.

Fiddlesticks' ultimate deals slightly more damage faster. It's not leaps and bounds, it's literally less than 70 more base damage, and actually lower scaling. More burst, but about the same damage.

and he also has a form of hard cc that keeps a target in range.

Fancy that, Rammus has Powerball, which has a knockback+slow, and then he has Taunt, which lasts another 2.25 seconds. He can keep a target in range for most, if not all of his ult's duration as well as Fiddlesticks can.

The reason Fiddle's ult does more is because he builds damage. So rammus deals less damage but is harder to kill. Fiddle deals more damage but is easy to kill. Everything working as intended it seems.

Yes, that's exactly how it works. Rammus' ultimate ends up being on par with Fiddlesticks without AP, but Fiddlesticks builds more AP than Rammus (don't you even try to tell me Rammus doesn't build any AP).

The point of this argument went beyond most people's understanding, it seems. I am not saying Rammus' ultimate is better or stronger than Fiddlesticks' ultimate. But you can't deny that it's nearly as strong as a pure damage champ's ultimate. Nearly as strong. It deals very near the same damage with only a slightly longer delay, and he has the CC to make up for that delay.

This is only one comparison of a tank's damage being high. Not "higher than X" but "high damage." It's less bursty, but not less damage.

SammystormJun 14, 20151 votes

It isn't as strong as fiddle's ult in any way shape or form. The AP scaling is largely irrelevant because as a whole rammus does not build ability power. He also doesn't build any mr penetration. This means that fiddle's ult will always do a significant amount of damage then rammus. Also fiddles ult duration being shorter means that fiddle will do more damage faster. this also means that fiddle's cc is more effective because the target will receive much more damage. they will receive over half of the duration of fiddles ult where you are lucky if they recieve half of rammus's ult. I am not saying rammus doesn't do damage because he does. However he doesn't even come close to the damage that fiddle can out put. I can say it isn't anywhere close to as strong as a pure damage ultimate. As I said the scaling is largely irrelevant because tanks don't build damage and if rammus does build damage he isn't a tank any longer.

JustMyBassCannonJun 14, 20152 votes

{quoted}

It isn't as strong as fiddle's ult in any way shape or form.

It has 70 less base damage and 15% more AP scaling over a 3-second longer duration.

It deals less per second because Fiddlesticks' ultimate has a shorter duration. Meanwhile, it has a shorter cooldown, a lower mana cost, and approximately the same total damage.

The AP scaling is largely irrelevant because as a whole rammus does not build ability power.

Bullshit.

He also doesn't build any mr penetration.

And this changes the fact that it has a base 1500+ damage...how?

Yes, I know that MPen is important to deal damage to other tanks. Meanwhile, it's still a lot of damage.

This means that fiddle's ult will always do a significant amount of damage then rammus.

If you give them the same item build, Rammus' ultimate will do the same, if not more, damage. The fact that he has a massive defense steroid means he totally could pull it off. I've seen it done often enough.

Also fiddles ult duration being shorter means that fiddle will do more damage faster.

Thank you for repeating what I said.

this also means that fiddle's cc is more effective because the target will receive much more damage.

Fiddle's CC actually pushes them away, unless he's chasing instead of using Drain. And they're both able to guarantee that a target stays in their ult radius for half the duration. Fiddles' one CC is more effective than one of Rammus' CCs, but Rammus has two of them.

they will receive over half of the duration of fiddles ult where you are lucky if they receive half of rammus's ult.

You can keep believing that, if you want to think like that. Meanwhile, Rammus can guarantee someone stays in range for at least half of his ult's duration, assuming they flash out instead of having to walk in slow motion for 3 seconds after Powerball.

I am not saying rammus doesn't do damage because he does. However he doesn't even come close to the damage that fiddle can out put.

He doesn't deal Fiddles' burst. He also has the disadvantage of not having two directly offensive spells that scale a metric fuckton per rank and per AP.

I was not at all arguing that Rammus has Fiddlesticks' pure damage output. That was never my point. I wanted to point out that an otherwise pure tank has an ultimate that has nearly the same base and scaling damage as a squishy pure mage's ultimate. Because it does.

On top of his not-small damage output from Powerball and DBC's reflect damage, and his passive's Armor to AD steroid, Rammus has damage output...a lot of damage output. Again, Fiddlesticks will probably deal more damage than Rammus unless he builds AP and MPen (seriously, it happens), but Rammus has solid damage output.

I can say it isn't anywhere close to as strong as a pure damage ultimate. As I said the scaling is largely irrelevant because tanks don't build damage and if rammus does build damage he isn't a tank any longer.

Right, because a 120 Armor/MR steroid is going to be totally useless when AP actually has a lot of good health and resistance itemization.

Question; have you ever seen a Rammus with RoA, Zhonya's and Abyssal? It's ludicrous.

SammystormJun 14, 20151 votes

http://www.probuilds.net/champions/Rammus Oh look every probuild rammus is almost completely full tank.

Yes you can cheese occasionally with full ap rammus but that doesn't make him tanky. He can be hard to deal with as AP but isn't tanky. When you are talking about ratio's and tanks it is stupid. Tanks don't build offense they rely on their bases. Rammus has weaker bases then fiddle and a longer duration which are both bad things. It is harder to keep some one in Rammus's ult for 8 seconds then it is for fiddle sticks to keep someone in his ult for 5.

I understand that you dislike how comparable both fiddle's and rammus's r can be. However saying things like fiddle has burst when 2/3 of his damaging spells are dps spells. As well as trying to use rammus's scaling as a relevant point of comparison well completely ignoring why rammus builds tank and why fiddle does not and what that fact causes the damage out put to be; is silly.

Also you completely ignore that powerball is used to engage and taunt is used to stick that means that over half of the slow from powerball is used during the duration of taunt. Meaning you usually have 4 seconds total of cc to keep them close to you.

Longer duration for AoE spells like these are always a bad thing. A longer duration makes the damage less reliable. A longer duration means that a target receives less damage per second and has more opportunities to dodge your damage.

As far as your point goes. So what that fiddle and rammus have similar bases and scaling? It is completely irrelevant due to the way that each champ is usually played and built.

JustMyBassCannonJun 14, 20152 votes

{quoted}

http://www.probuilds.net/champions/Rammus Oh look every probuild rammus is almost completely full tank.

Oh look, someone else's recorded build on a website is pure tank. Cool story. Tell me again when I give a fuck about people putting their builds on websites.

Yes you can cheese occasionally with full ap rammus but that doesn't make him tanky. He can be hard to deal with as AP but isn't tanky. When you are talking about ratio's and tanks it is stupid. Tanks don't build offense they rely on their bases. Rammus has weaker bases then fiddle and a longer duration which are both bad things. It is harder to keep some one in Rammus's ult for 8 seconds then it is for fiddle sticks to keep someone in his ult for 5.

Except it's not. Rammus has innate mobility on top of more CC than Fiddlesticks, making him more capable of keeping an opponent in range for his ult's duration.

I understand that you dislike how comparable both fiddle's and rammus's r can be. However saying things like fiddle has burst when 2/3 of his damaging spells are dps spells. As well as trying to use rammus's scaling as a relevant point of comparison well completely ignoring why rammus builds tank and why fiddle does not and what that fact causes the damage out put to be; is silly.

It's not silly to take scaling into account. It's actually taking into account all the variables.

Fiddlesticks has higher base and lower scaling. Entirely factual. Also factual is that Rammus can and does pull off building AP. Trying to completely ignore that Rammus has similar damage and a lower cooldown on a similarly-designed ultimate is sightless and idiotic.

Also you completely ignore that powerball is used to engage and taunt is used to stick that means that over half of the slow from powerball is used during the duration of taunt. Meaning you usually have 4 seconds total of cc to keep them close to you.

If you're using the abilities purely for the initiation of a fight, this is true. But I don't have to follow your meta to be effective.

Longer duration for AoE spells like these are always a bad thing. A longer duration makes the damage less reliable. A longer duration means that a target receives less damage per second and has more opportunities to dodge your damage.

Longer duration CC allows you to keep enemies closer for longer, making up for the fact that it takes longer to deal its damage. As I've said far more than enough times for anyone with a normal mind to process.

Fiddlesticks' ultimate also has the very obvious weakness of needing to be channeled first, and not having innate mobility. If your team is placing wards, as any team worth its brass should, you're going to see it coming and have a full second to split before he'll even be in range, entirely missing his ultimate. Meanwhile, Rammus can always wait until he's on top of people.

As far as your point goes. So what that fiddle and rammus have similar bases and scaling? It is completely irrelevant due to the way that each champ is usually played and built.

The entire point was to show that tanks actually do have high damage output. This is one example of a tank with solid damage, and it's Rammus' ultimate having nearly the same amount of damage as Fiddlesticks' ultimate.

7thHeavenJun 13, 20159 votes

Because Rammus stands in 1 spot after he uses his ulti

Mandang0Jun 13, 20153 votes

This. Also, Rammus isn't even the problem. It's the Cho/Gragas/Sej, not to mention the tanks who sacrifice some utility for even more damage, like Shyv/Mundo/Singed.

LankPantsJun 13, 20151 votes

Shyv/Mundo/Singed.

3 champions in a really bad place at the moment? Although I'll reserve judgement on Shy for a few more days at least.

Also Shyv and Mundo are bruisers.

rockdalianJun 13, 20152 votes

Mundo is a tank he has one ability with a weak ap ratio forget exact number atm his entire kit revolves around health and if you build right you'll get plenty of mr and armor to go with that health he is not a bruiser he can deal a lot of damage with cleaver but that's mainly an anti tank ability that hurts squishies much like mumu's w more health missing the more damage done

Mandang0Jun 13, 20154 votes

Well, the relevant matter in this thread is how much damage a champion can deal on certain amounts of damage itemization. Call it a bruiser, call it a tank, I don't care - what I do care about is that they rarely buy offensive items, and they often outdamage the champions who do.

Hell, of the bunch, Singed probably spends the most on offensive stats, yet I'm supposed to believe he's the tank of the 3? At a certain point, the label 'bruiser' really doesn't bring much to the discussion...

Critmaster GarenJun 13, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Well, the relevant matter in this thread is how much damage a champion can deal on certain amounts of damage itemization. Call it a bruiser, call it a tank, I don't care - what I do care about is that they rarely buy offensive items, and they often outdamage the champions who do.

Hell, of the bunch, Singed probably spends the most on offensive stats, yet I'm supposed to believe he's the tank of the 3? At a certain point, the label 'bruiser' really doesn't bring much to the discussion...

singed deals far less damage than an ad carry. especially with offensive itemization. (meaning with items like seraphs and rod of ages without building much armor, bork just takes a plain shit on him).

the problem is that most of his damage is applied over a long duration, in which a lategame carry can just sit in his poison and outheal the damage he deals with lifesteal.

burst vs damage over time makes a huge difference. that is also the case with rammus ult.

{quoted}

What's your point?

If I look up the damage dealt chart at the end of the game, the tanks are going to be dealing more damage than the squishy champions despite building less damage. I don't care whether they take more damage (which they do), I care whether they deal more damage.

weird, in the games ive been plying, ad carries were usually on top of everyone else. and far ahead at that. unless the game ended midgame.

Mandang0Jun 13, 20152 votes

Most games I see Singed, he deals top or second-most damage. In my experience, the APC usually ends up outdamaging the ADC anyway (especially if it's an AOE mage as opposed to an assassin). Most games I play support Zyra, I outdamage the ADCs as well.

ADC is a class that needs to build their damage to deal that damage, moreso than even APC, as the latter can rely on base damages somewhat. ADC is also very limited in AOE, which makes it easier for other roles to do damage. Lategame, ADC might very well do the most damage, but that's such a short (and not guaranteed) period of the game, that I'm not surprised the end-game charts don't show ADC dealing the most damage.

Most of my games end around 30-35 minutes, for what it's worth.

Aych PiiJun 13, 20152 votes

Shyv pretty much always gets BorK.

SammystormJun 13, 20151 votes

To be entirely fair. Tanks almost never do more damage then the carries. Pre nerf sej did but other then her no one really did more damage then carries.

Mandang0Jun 13, 20152 votes

Claim: X happens. Counter: To be fair, X doesn't happen.

...

LankPantsJun 14, 20151 votes

Pre nerf Sej didn't out damage ADCs ever.

Her W dealt 160 + 10% of a targets HP + 12%HP. Most ADCs dealt that much damage in two autos.

SammystormJun 14, 20151 votes

Sej w had good damage on top of the burst on both her e, q and r. her damage has been nerfed several times before the patch in this season.

JustMyBassCannonJun 13, 20154 votes

[{quoted}](name=Critmaster Garen,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=YBh1JiuU,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2015-06-13T15:51:58.262+0000)

why are you sitting in that small area for 8 seconds?

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over Rammus' Powerball chasing me. Because it doesn't interrupt his ult.

do you want me to list how much fortunes or lucians ult deal in an ideal scenario?

Miss Fortune's ultimate is 1000 +160% AP damage, plus 216-384% total AD depending on how many stacks a target has beforehand. (a) It's easier to avoid, (b) it's CC-interruptable, and (c) I didn't say Rammus deals more damage than carries, just that he deals a lot of damage with his ultimate.

Lucian's ultimate is a bit more weird in scaling, because it can increase the damage from three scalars: AD, AP and AS. The minimum damage of his ultimate (i.e. the amount he can deal if every shot lands at his minimum attack speed) is 520 (+325% bonus AD) (+130% AP) // 750 (+375% bonus AD) (+150% AP) // 1080 (+450% bonus AD) (+180% AP).

The maximum damage, which requires 2.5 AS (which Lucian needs +336% bonus AS to hit at level 18), is 1040 (+650% bonus AD) (+260% AP) // 1500 (+750% bonus AD) (+300% AP) // 1980 (+825% bonus AD) (+330% AP).

Rammus doesn't need to build a ton of damage for his ultimate to deal a metric ton of damage, and it's AoE. While MF and Lucian have higher scaling, Rammus has 50% more base damage and enough scaling to make it worthwhile to pick up mixed offense/defense items instead of just pure offense.

Critmaster GarenJun 13, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over Rammus' Powerball chasing me. Because it doesn't interrupt his ult.

Miss Fortune's ultimate is 1000 +160% AP damage, plus 216-384% total AD depending on how many stacks a target has beforehand. (a) It's easier to avoid, (b) it's CC-interruptable, and (c) I didn't say Rammus deals more damage than carries, just that he deals a lot of damage with his ultimate.

Lucian's ultimate is a bit more weird in scaling, because it can increase the damage from three scalars: AD, AP and AS. The minimum damage of his ultimate (i.e. the amount he can deal if every shot lands at his minimum attack speed) is 520 (+325% bonus AD) (+130% AP) // 750 (+375% bonus AD) (+150% AP) // 1080 (+450% bonus AD) (+180% AP).

The maximum damage, which requires 2.5 AS (which Lucian needs +336% bonus AS to hit at level 18), is 1040 (+650% bonus AD) (+260% AP) // 1500 (+750% bonus AD) (+300% AP) // 1980 (+825% bonus AD) (+330% AP).

Rammus doesn't need to build a ton of damage for his ultimate to deal a metric ton of damage, and it's AoE. While MF and Lucian have higher scaling, Rammus has 50% more base damage and enough scaling to make it worthwhile to pick up mixed offense/defense items instead of just pure offense.

rammus usually doesnt built ap or armor pen. so it basically stays at the base damage, which is mitigated by mr.

in an ideal scenario just like someone standing 8 seconds in a rammus ult, fortune can hit 5 people with her ult, since it covers a large area. it also profits from last whisper and applies cleaver stacks if she wants to get it.

similar scenario for lucian, where his entire ult can easily deal 2000 damage, with armor pen from last whisper.

ive never seen a rammus powerball after hes already in melee range. he usually uses the ability to initiate. then taunts and ults. so youre really only stuck in the area during the short taunt, after which he has to walk after you to keep you in range of his ult.

if you dont manage to make it out in in the remaining 5 seconds, then something is terribly wrong with how youre playing, and you might want to switch roles.

JustMyBassCannonJun 13, 20155 votes

THE POINT

YOUR HEAD

I did not, at any point claim that Rammus' ultimate dealt more damage than Lucian's or Miss Fortune's. All I said was that Rammus deals a lot of damage. And he deals a ton of damage.

Thank you, have a nice day, learn to fucking understand elementary English.

Critmaster GarenJun 13, 20151 votes

{quoted}

THE POINT

YOUR HEAD

I did not, at any point claim that Rammus' ultimate dealt more damage than Lucian's or Miss Fortune's. All I said was that Rammus deals a lot of damage. And he deals a ton of damage.

Thank you, have a nice day, learn to fucking understand elementary English.

i clearly understood your point.

and im saying youre exaggerating. he deals potentially a lot of damage in an ideal scenario, where someone is caught in his ult for the full 8 seconds, and doesnt build any form of mr.

in reality someone will get hit by maybe 3 seconds of that tops. and thats not a lot of damage after mitigation.

JustMyBassCannonJun 13, 20153 votes

[{quoted}](name=Critmaster Garen,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=YBh1JiuU,comment-id=000400000002000000000000,timestamp=2015-06-13T17:35:27.279+0000)

i clearly understood your point.

and im saying youre exaggerating. he deals potentially a lot of damage in an ideal scenario, where someone is caught in his ult for the full 8 seconds, and doesnt build any form of mr.

in reality someone will get hit by maybe 3 seconds of that tops. and thats not a lot of damage after mitigation.

And the same doesn't apply to Lucian and Miss Fortune, both of whom are channeling their ultimates and thus have more openings to avoiding their ults' full potential damage?

Don't use an argument that skewers the heart of your own.

Critmaster GarenJun 13, 20151 votes

{quoted}

And the same doesn't apply to Lucian and Miss Fortune, both of whom are channeling their ultimates and thus have more openings to avoiding their ults' full potential damage?

Don't use an argument that skewers the heart of your own.

no it doesnt. you said rammus deals a ton of damage in an ideal scenario. i said, its still nothing compared to an mf ult in an ideal scanrio who hits 5 people, or a fully channeled lucian ult.

and thats a fact. even their ults alone deal potenially far more damage if all 3 of them are compared in ideal situations. not to mention the fact, that without their ults, their damage potential doesnt drop like rammus, since they still have their autos to keep going.

in reality neither of those scenarios will ever happen. rammus wont hit someone for the full 8 seconds, and lucian is just as unlikely to channel a full ult on someone.

now just stop before you embarass yourself further.

JustMyBassCannonJun 13, 20154 votes

[{quoted}](name=Critmaster Garen,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=YBh1JiuU,comment-id=00040000000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-06-13T18:19:11.884+0000)

no it doesnt. you said rammus deals a ton of damage in an ideal scenario. i said, its still nothing compared to an mf ult in an ideal scanrio who hits 5 people, or a fully channeled lucian ult.

I never said Rammus deals more damage. I said he deals a lot of damage. Get. That. Through. Your. Goddamn. Skull.

and thats a fact. even their ults alone deal potenially far more damage if all 3 of them are compared in ideal situations. not to mention the fact, that without their ults, their damage potential doesnt drop like rammus, since they still have their autos to keep going.

Yes, their ultimates have more potential damage, because they aren't tanks. They aren't build with any innate defense at all. They are squishy. In exchange for not being able to walk under a turret for 10 seconds straight without any fear, they get more damage. It's a fucking logical trade-off.

in reality neither of those scenarios will ever happen. rammus wont hit someone for the full 8 seconds, and lucian is just as unlikely to channel a full ult on someone.

now just stop before you embarass yourself further.

No, I'll just stop before I frustrate myself further with another goddamned fool.

EvilRabbittJun 13, 20153 votes

If you want to put that "potentially" there my good sir, please look at Katarina's 3 second ultimate channel. Not arguing for/against Rammus just saying that argument right there is bogus. 90% of player base that posts on forums think Kat is op because skill does tons of damage, ironically its only 35% ap more than Rammus's ulti who is a tank. Who can KEEP YOU ON TOP OF HIM during it. The difference? It takes a tiny bit longer for the tank to nuke than the assassin. Just saying mate. Nothing against anyone, but you can't use potentially or everyone comes in like...well....like I did....

7ha7guy777Jun 13, 20152 votes

That also affects structures

EvilRabbittJun 13, 20152 votes

Hey what happened to our nexu....oh. Rammus. You sly...thing, you.

EndlessSorcererJun 13, 20154 votes

High base damage, but Rammus doesn't typically build AP or penetration in any significant quantities. If you have any MR, that damage will be significantly reduced.

JustMyBassCannonJun 13, 20153 votes

It's always totally possible to pick up Zhonya's or Abyssal Scepter as Rammus. Hell, with the new Abyssal Scepter, it might be considered being a bad tank if you don't pick up Abyssal.

RottedApplesJun 13, 20152 votes

Rammus item 3724 item 3157 item 3089 item 3100 item 3135 item 3020

Pls Kappa

IAMS4T4NJun 13, 20154 votes

Darius Garen Irelia JarvanIV Nasus Renekton Trundle Sion Shyvana Zac Volibear Vladimir Warwick Sejuani Hecarim Blitzcrank Gragas Malphite Rammus XinZhao Amumu Udyr Maokai Chogath stfu pls ty

the only tanks that don't deal an insane amount of damage are Shen Alistar Braum

YumaS2AstralJun 13, 20152 votes

Most of the champions that you listed aren't tanks, are fighters. Fighters sacrifice utility and SOME of their tankyness to be able to deal a lot more damage when compared to tanks.

People think that tank is just someone who doesn't die, when an actual tank has a lot of CC, utility, etc. Also, every tank has a defensive steroid, while most fighters don't have defensive steroids.

CaelerJun 13, 20154 votes

The only champions that don't really belong on that list are Darius and Vladimir .

People think that tank is just someone who doesn't die, when an actual tank has a lot of CC, utility, etc.

This is wrong. A tank really is just someone who's extremely difficult to take down. The latter part of your statement, however, is what separates good tanks from meh tanks. Most fighters can be built as tanks, but a straight tank Sion is going to be a much better tank than a straight tank Warwick or Irelia because the CC he provides is going to be way more disruptive in a teamfight. Warwick and Irelia would just kind of be there, and wouldn't be nearly as useful to the team.

EDIT: I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying that they aren't primarily fighters. Their kits definitely go better with fighter type builds. I'm saying that some can be played as tanks if the situation calls for it (e.g. no other tanks on team).

T RexHasTinyArmsJun 13, 20151 votes

So I'm curious what differentiates being a tank from building tank? I don't think that the guy you quoted is right that true tanks have to have cc, utility, etc (unless etc covers anything that makes it so you can't ignore them, and then cc and utility are redundant to list), but your definition of "extremely difficult to take down" seems lacking too.

If all it takes to be a tank is being difficult to take down build item 3111 item 3143 item 3025 item 3139 item 3026 and item 3153 on Vayne or Ezreal . You'll have tons of kite and take very little damage. You also won't do a whole lot of damage, and don't bring CC or any other utility, so you can just be ignored in fights until the rest of the team is killed. I'd argue in that case the character is tanky, but not a tank, because they cannot actually tank for their team since there is no legitimate reason to damage them.

CaelerJun 14, 20151 votes

To add to my own previous definition of a tank, I mean difficult to take down when actually being attacked. Ez and Vayne aren't going to be receiving much damage at all because they'll be kiting. If they were to run into a fight first they'd still die instantly because that build only gives about 2300-2400 hp at level 18.

T RexHasTinyArmsJun 14, 20151 votes

Well I mean you could swap out some of the stuff for things that would give them more tank stats and less damage and fit the definition even more so and go item 3111 item 3143 item 3102 item 3083 item 3065 item 3075 instead, which will have more armor, mr, and hp than what I listed above, and will be hard to take down when actually being attacked, but they'd do even less damage.

Does that work better for you? The point is though that w/ that tank build I just suggested they have even less damage and utility (hell they don't even have ibg slow or botrk slow to help teammates chase down kills any more), and so they are even less worth focusing. Maybe I'm missing something but an EZ that builds that will probably die as slowly as darius/wu/something like that, bc the fighter may have a small defense steroid like wu passive, but if EZ uses his blink to dodge a skill shot he can probably dodge enough damage to balance that out, and something tells me that looking at that build then darius/wu/whatever other fighter you want, will always be worth attacking before the EZ bc they bring something more threatening to the table (ie darius can pull an out of position squishy and has a true damage execute ult if you don't focus him before ez, wu has a knock up ult, and armor reduction on something (I think it's q) so he brings minor utility). I guess that's what I meant, I mean you CAN build tank and be hard to kill, but not every one will still bring something worth while to the fight.

CaelerJun 14, 20151 votes

I'd argue in that case the character is tanky, but not a tank, because they cannot actually tank for their team since there is no legitimate reason to damage them.

Sorry I missed this in your previous post. Yes, the build you described is a tanky build rather than a tank build. You would still have reason to attack them though. For starters, that build should still get those two to about 200 AD, which is decent enough auto attack damage. Plus they still have abilities as well and should still get out some sort of damage. If you ignored them, they'd still get off a good amount of damage. Additionally, focusing them is also beneficial because, as I stated above, that build only gives them about 2300-2400 hp. By the time they're full build, the other team's carries should also have %pen items which will drastically decrease how tanky they are because they lack hp. Focusing them would help win you the teamfight because if you can kill one of them quickly (which you can because no hp), then you effectively make the fight a 4v5. Obviously there would be higher priority targets, but the point stands.

Maybe I'm missing something but an EZ that builds that will probably die as slowly as darius/wu/something like that, bc the fighter may have a small defense steroid like wu passive, but if EZ uses his blink to dodge a skill shot he can probably dodge enough damage to balance that out

Are you referring to the first build or the second? If the first, then it's debatable. The other fighters generally build more health items than that. Wu, for example, usually gets Black Cleaver as one of his damage items, which gives an additional 400 hp. He'd therefore be able to tank for a longer period of time than the Ez or Vayne who built BoRK. And for the skillshot argument, the other champions would be able to dodge skillshots too but it would be significantly harder.

I mean you CAN build tank and be hard to kill, but not every one will still bring something worth while to the fight.

Yes, this is true. In my reply to the OP, I stated that a full tank Sion would be more useful than a full tank Warwick or Irelia. My argument is not that these champions would necessarily make good tanks, but that they CAN tank. I think the best example of what I mean is how Ezreal can be built either AD or AP. If you build him AD, then he's a Marksman. If you build him AP, then he's a Mage but he's not really a Marksman anymore. In the same vein, I think that if Darius built tank then he should be considered a tank, atleast in the game in which he built tank. His kit might fit a fighter build far better, but he could still tank. He just probably wouldn't make a very good tank.

T RexHasTinyArmsJun 15, 20151 votes

+1 for really solid replies. Yeah I meant the second ez build, but I think the last part you said clears up a lot and I worded my first part poorly.

I suppose my intention was more to point out that while everything on that list can build tank, I think some of them are honestly just fighters and while they can off tank, they aren't good enough tanks to really be considered a tank. At the same time, the thought that tanks need cc, utility, damage, and especially multiples of those seems foolish to me. The thing is they just need something that makes them a threat that has to be dealt with and then they are awesome because the team has to deal with them, but they are hard to kill.

For instance malphite has strong initiation, slow for peel/chase, and attack speed low for damage reduction on carries, so if you try to dive past him and ignore him for higher dmg targets you get wrecked bc he brings utility and lock down and gives the enemy dmg a huge advantage. Mundo in contrast has shit cc/utility, but has lots of damage, speed boost and cc reduction so he can face tank stuff and chase off the enemy damage and if you ignore him to go straight for the carries and you can't catch them or do but don't have dmg to kill quick, he zones your damage or sits on their face and kills them w/ cleavers and fire. Primary tanks have to be decent, I guess is all I'm saying. If you have Darius and irelia as your tanks you don't have a comp with tanks you have a comp with two off tanks who have to keep from getting focused by the whole team bc if amumu or something locks them both down, one can be removed w/ out them losing enough of a problem that it is an issue, and then the squishies are yours to plunder.

Edit: at least in low elo it is true that you can play around an off tank easier than a well done fighter that wrecks the carries while a legit tank brings cc or a meat shield for the carries.

Malix FarwinJun 14, 20151 votes

pretty sure Vladimir is a tank actually

CaelerJun 14, 20151 votes

You build straight tank Vlad and tell me how that works out for you. Meanwhile...

Mandang0Jun 13, 20153 votes

"it's a lie"... but I have no numbers to support my claim at all. So...I guess that makes it an opinion.

Compared to bruisers and assassins (even ADCs), tanks have more AOE. Compared to mages...who the hell is trying to compare a tank to a mage?

"People are using squishy champions" These squishy champions should be doing more damage as a result. When they don't, that's why people complain about tanks dealing too much damage, because they get the best of both worlds (not to mention better utility).

EndlessSorcererJun 13, 20151 votes

Squishy champions deal more raw damage.

Tanks take mitigated damage.

Have you ever witnessed one squishy blowing up another in 3 hits? Have you witnessed two tanks slowly slapping eachother to death over 30 seconds before just walking away?