Go to:
Your Drive -> Users -> (Your User) -> .counterplay -> duelyst -> (version) -> resources -> app -> src -> resources -> units
From there, just search for “Unseven”. Rename the downloaded sprite sheet “neutral_unseven”, copy and replace. If you want, back up the origin Unseven sprite somewhere safe.
i like your new prof pic
@RyanH it’s such a shame that oserix dying wish isn’t used, any way to utilize it? i mean sajj and artifacts are made for eachother 
Not in this deck, no. There simply isn’t room. However, Oserix by itself is as mentioned above too slow, can be dispelled, and if you want artifacts just play Autarch’s Gifts.
I note you have 76% win-rate, but not 76% win-rate in S, where you note the list “Works”.
You also call on us to “have faith”.
I’d like some proof, please. I’d love to find out this sort of list actually works in S, but words are cheap, and more words don’t make them any more reliable. Please provide some proof for the list working in S. And what the win-rate in S is, and what the sample size is.
such a demanding customer lul XD
I like the concept of this deck, good job RyanH 
. I will definitely try this one once I get the cards for it. Oserix and Corpse Combustion were always cards I wanted to see used, and I’m glad to see them together.
You really shouldn’t craft those cards. Not only does this deck only have a winrate that high in silver and below, but the only reason he says “S rank viable” is because technically, if you make S rank with another deck, you can play any 39 card pile and call it “S rank viable.” Don’t be fooled by people who refuse to give evidence of their rank/winrates.
Hmm, Ryan is a well known S Rank player dude. He doesn’t need to prove he’s S.
And S Rank viable means it works in S, no more, no less. The fuck do you want more.
@tundranocaps
@ashwaswrong
The both of you should by now be aware that Ryan is an S tier player. In addition, he also makes these decks for memes and fun. If you want a “viable” ranking deck, go netdeck somewhere else.
Tbh the 2 of you at the very least owe him an apology for your attitudes, which quite frankly, were uncalled for.
Not to be rude, but please be civil in these threads. If there is a question regarding the feasibility of the list in s rank, than ask. May I also remind all that it is against policy to provide ad hominen attacks on others. Remember; criticize ideas, not people.
Ryan is not a top S-player as far as anybody knows. His IGN is not publicly known. And that is fine, if he just made fun decks and didn’t claim them to be S-rank viable and give specific information like them having 76% winrate. It might give new players who want to be competitive the idea that they should craft unplayable cards like unseven, and it really sucks for them when they find out how bad of an idea that was. While I approve of the effort, I do not approve of the claims without evidence that appear to be complete nonsense.
I would assume he, like most people, wouldn’t make a claim without meaning it. Being S-rank viable can most likely imply this was tested at S-rank. He provided the statistic which is evidence. 76% implies, at minimum, 19 out of 25 games won. This is a substantial number of games. Now if you choose not to believe what’s provided, that’s upon you as the reader.
Non-meta doesn’t necessarily equate to non-competitive. I can agree that buyer’s remorse can happen when buying very conditional archetype or niche cards, but if (as you say) a player wants to be competitive, and this has been tested, it’s proven itself.
You ask for evidence, he provided a statistic. Statistics ARE evidence. What other evidence does one need? I hope not that it was actually played in S-rank, because that’d imply RyanH was lying, a notion I see no grounds on. 
@seraphicreaper
Statistics are not evidence. Ever hear the saying “63% of all statistics on the internet are made up”? Statistical Evidence IS a thing, but that means providing the raw data the statistics are pulled from, not just some number said in a forum.
Fifteen characters.
Well said
Fifteen characters
My issue now is the OP made several statements I found questionable, and when I question them I get no answers, but instead my motives are questioned, and the people who question me get likes from people with strangely similar avatars. Is it a wonder that as involved in the community as I am I never come to these forums? Sorry if I find all of this highly suspicious, but I do believe that there are grounds to not trust what Ryan has said about this deck.
I’m sorry to break it to you, but there was no evidence provided, merely a claim. “The deck has 76% winrate” is a claim, it doesn’t prove anything. If the claim were true, it means the a number of games would have been played with the deck, and 76% of those games would have been won. The evidence for this claim would be the replays of those games. You say there is no reason to lie, but when the claim is so far-fetched, there is no reason I should believe it without evidence.
There’s no problem with doubting the viability of the deck, but that’s why he backed it up with its S rank stats. If you doubt his truthfulness, I’m sure he’ll show up to post a screenshot. But it’s surprising how well off meta decks can do, even strange Vetruvian things such as this.
I think the main issue others have had with your comments is that they’re aggressive and rather rude for no reason, making you come off as haughty.
As for the icons, go scroll to the bottom of the meme thread, hah. It’s been a funny time 
Asks for critique, thread proceeds to criticize said criticism.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
You can hardly compare blatant attacks on OP’s truthfulness to critique on the deck.