With the amount of weapons being played currently in hearthstone, weapon removal is at large. I think it is safe to say that Acidic Swamp Ooze is one of the most commonly seen neutral 2 drops.
Generally in high level play, most players running the ooze, will wait to play it until they can get enough value off it, that generally means destroying a weapon with at least more than one charge left on it (the exception being gorehowl). With this in mind, I think running Toxic Sewer Ooze in decks is actually more powerful than it gets credit for. The ability to remove one charge is far superior to destroying the whole weapon, as long as the weapon has one charge left, which is very likely considering the amount of low charge weapons in the game (Rogue hero power, Fiery War Axe, Jade Claws) All of these weapons only have two charges, which means after the initial attack toxic sewer ooze's value increases exponentially.
Look at it like this, why would use a battlecry that destroys a whole weapon, when it only has one charge left? This is why I believe Sewer ooze is a very viable option.
I'm going to be testing some decks running Toxic Sewer ooze as a one off, with two Swamp oozes as well, I believe that the combination of these three minions will be enough to keep aggressive weapons at bay. I am very curious to hear what you guys think and to discuss weapon counters in general.
Why would i use a card that removes one durability while i have another that can destroy a weapon alltogether. If i ever need weapon removal #4 or 5 i will consider it but for the #1 and 3 ooze+harrison is infinitely better. Like you said sometimes it does not matter whether you destroy or just remove one durability. But sometimes it does like when doomhammer jaraxxus or ashbringer is present
For the Toxic Sewer Ooze to see play, it should...actually it is crap design. Acidic ooze is insanely powerful, in my opinion, and toxic ooze would only be playable if it had an equivalent effect, or if the two cards switched effects, which I think would be reasonable.
In what deck do you play it? It makes no sense to play 2 Acidic Ooze in any Reno deck, and it makes no sense to play these Oozes outside Reno decks. Because you never want to play such shitty minions in any other deck archetype.
The ability to remove one charge is far superior to destroying the whole weapon
WTF did I just read? This logic only makes sense if Acidic Swamp Ooze had lower stats due to its "stronger effect." But it doesn't, so this logic sucks.
My logic is that removing the final charge on a weapon with toxic sewer ooze is more efficient than destroying a weapon with one charge left with acidic swamp ooze. I am in no way claiming that Acidic swamp ooze is less reliable than Toxic Sewer ooze, I am only saying that due to the abundance of weapons with 2 or less charges in the current meta, Toxic Sewer Ooze is a lot better than people have given it credit for
The only play we'll see when it comes to highlander decks such as renolock or renomage, but then removing one card for another weapon removal can make other some matchups even worse (therefore, having 2 useless cards in your hand).
So it's actually a bad card by itself, but I might give it a try If I faced 10 pirates in a row, then it's going to be worth having it.
EDIT: Oh, one more thing, if hunter and paladin becomes popular anytime, I would love to give this card a try.
That is a valid point, when a weapon has more than one charge, Acidic Swamp Ooze is superior in every facet. But if we could just hypothesize here, lets say that you are fighting a warrior who has one charge on his Arcanite Reaper left, and you have a Swamp Ooze, and a Toxic Sewer Ooze in your hand, It would make more sense to use the Sewer Ooze and remove the final charge, rather than use the Acidic Swamp Ooze right?
Now I want it to be clear that I don't think Toxic Sewer Ooze is a meta breaking card or anything like that. But I think based on the current meta, and the overabundance of low charge weapons, It is a certainly viable tech, at least as a one off.
The ability to remove one charge is far superior to destroying the whole weapon
WTF did I just read? This logic only makes sense if Acidic Swamp Ooze had lower stats due to its "stronger effect." But it doesn't, so this logic sucks.
You only quoted a portion of what I am saying. As such I find your response to be completely asinine and immature.
What I am trying to say here, is that based on the current meta with its large abundance of low charge weapons, Toxic sewer ooze is a reliable option. Maybe you should read my opening statement more clearly before acting like a total brat.
Your argument that toxic sewer ooze is superior to acidic swamp ooze when removing a one durability weapon doesn't make too much sense...
How is destroying the weapon with small ooze any worse than...destroying it with big ooze? Just because you're losing potential value on small ooze doesn't make a card that has LESS POTENTIAL VALUE to start with any better. In fact, ooze is less mana to cast anyway, which means you will be able to cast it in more situations. Also, if your argument is that you're holding both oozes at the same time, it is better to play big ooze against a low charge weapon, true...but you may as well be running 2 small oozes instead if you're in that position.
In a deck with 3 oozes overall, I SUPPOSE your points make sense, but why not just run harrison instead?
Your argument that toxic sewer ooze is superior to acidic swamp ooze when removing a one durability weapon doesn't make too much sense...
How is destroying the weapon with small ooze any worse than...destroying it with big ooze? Just because you're losing potential value on small ooze doesn't make a card that has LESS POTENTIAL VALUE to start with any better. In fact, ooze is less mana to cast anyway, which means you will be able to cast it in more situations. Also, if your argument is that you're holding both oozes at the same time, it is better to play big ooze against a low charge weapon, true...but you may as well be running 2 small oozes instead if you're in that position.
In a deck with 3 oozes overall, I SUPPOSE your points make sense, but why not just run harrison instead?
I'm assuming that since most people are misinterpreting what I said, most you are either not reading what I said all the way through, or I poorly chose my words when I wrote this. I want to clarify this for you right now I do not think Toxic Sewer Ooze is superior to Acidic Swamp Ooze, at all. This seems to be a common misunderstanding, and as a matter of fact I think, toxic sewer ooze would only be viable as a one off, if it saw play at all. All I wanted to do was discuss it's potential based on the meta's overabundance of weapons with low durability.
The way I see it there are only three viable archetypes right now, pirate, jade, and reno. Most people say that in terms of weapon removal, Harrison Jones is too slow to be viable, which I will generally agree with. I think based on the amount of weapons in the meta currently, toxic sewer ooze definitely is a decent tech, but I also understand that in a lot of situations it is a terrible card to play.
Your argument that toxic sewer ooze is superior to acidic swamp ooze when removing a one durability weapon doesn't make too much sense...
How is destroying the weapon with small ooze any worse than...destroying it with big ooze? Just because you're losing potential value on small ooze doesn't make a card that has LESS POTENTIAL VALUE to start with any better. In fact, ooze is less mana to cast anyway, which means you will be able to cast it in more situations. Also, if your argument is that you're holding both oozes at the same time, it is better to play big ooze against a low charge weapon, true...but you may as well be running 2 small oozes instead if you're in that position.
In a deck with 3 oozes overall, I SUPPOSE your points make sense, but why not just run harrison instead?
I'm assuming that since most people are misinterpreting what I said, most you are either not reading what I said all the way through, or I poorly chose my words when I wrote this. I want to clarify this for you right now I do not think Toxic Sewer Ooze is superior to Acidic Swamp Ooze, at all. This seems to be a common misunderstanding, and as a matter of fact I think, toxic sewer ooze would only be viable as a one off, if it saw play at all. All I wanted to do was discuss it's potential based on the meta's overabundance of weapons with low durability.
The way I see it there are only three viable archetypes right now, pirate, jade, and reno. Most people say that in terms of weapon removal, Harrison Jones is too slow to be viable, which I will generally agree with. I think based on the amount of weapons in the meta currently, toxic sewer ooze definitely is a decent tech, but I also understand that in a lot of situations it is a terrible card to play.
Ok i think I understand what you're trying to say now, just the way you phrased it made it difficult to understand0
That is a valid point, when a weapon has more than one charge, Acidic Swamp Ooze is superior in every facet. But if we could just hypothesize here, lets say that you are fighting a warrior who has one charge on his Arcanite Reaper left, and you have a Swamp Ooze, and a Toxic Sewer Ooze in your hand, It would make more sense to use the Sewer Ooze and remove the final charge, rather than use the Acidic Swamp Ooze right?
Now I want it to be clear that I don't think Toxic Sewer Ooze is a meta breaking card or anything like that. But I think based on the current meta, and the overabundance of low charge weapons, It is a certainly viable tech, at least as a one off.
It's viable, Toxic Sewer Ooze in Reno Warlock is a staple for me, you're not worried about Upgrade! on Rusty Hook at all, because Upgrade! on Rusty Hook isn't going to kill you before turn 6. You're only looking to deny Fiery Waraxe or Arcanite Reaper from being Upgraded, because that's where their fast kills are comming from.
And incidentally, a 3 mana, 4 attack creature is awesome for Shadowflame.
That is a valid point, when a weapon has more than one charge, Acidic Swamp Ooze is superior in every facet. But if we could just hypothesize here, lets say that you are fighting a warrior who has one charge on his Arcanite Reaper left, and you have a Swamp Ooze, and a Toxic Sewer Ooze in your hand, It would make more sense to use the Sewer Ooze and remove the final charge, rather than use the Acidic Swamp Ooze right?
Now I want it to be clear that I don't think Toxic Sewer Ooze is a meta breaking card or anything like that. But I think based on the current meta, and the overabundance of low charge weapons, It is a certainly viable tech, at least as a one off.
It's viable, Toxic Sewer Ooze in Reno Warlock is a staple for me, you're not worried about Upgrade! on Rusty Hook at all, because Upgrade! on Rusty Hook isn't going to kill you before turn 6. You're only looking to deny Fiery Waraxe or Arcanite Reaper from being Upgraded, because that's where their fast kills are comming from.
And incidentally, a 3 mana, 4 attack creature is awesome for Shadowflame.
Exactly! It is reliable enough to swap into a reno list, assuming there are lots of aggressive weapons circulating the meta.
So I guess someone with a commercial driver's license should never drive a car and always a truck because otherwise they'd be wasting the "potential" of their license LOL.
Wake up from your dreams, Toxic is unplayable, albeit marginally.
Acidic Swamp Ooze is vastly superior over Toxic Sewer Ooze because it costs one less (allowing great flexibility), removes entire weapons, and as a side 2 health is a good number - it is not a pingable health total, while it eats 3 damage removals as naturally as Toxic Sewer Ooze do.
That said, the argument for putting this in Reno decks is reasonable (as an extra Ooze), except for the fact that at turn 3 you'd rather be removing their pirates instead of removing their weapon.
You can maybe put it in reno decks but aside from that not really.. I get the point that you play a little better body for the effect that's similar to ooze sometimes but it's quite bad since you want the effect and not the body.
While most common weapons in a majority of cases have one charge left after attacking such as ,Truesilver, Fiery war axe, Archanite Reaper, Rouge Hero power etc. You are left not being able to counter other weapons to an impactful extent such as Doomhamer, Ashbringer etc. While Swamp Ooze on the other hand out right destroys said weapon. In the right situation Toxic Ooze is fine, however in the general case Swamp Ooze is far more reliable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
With the amount of weapons being played currently in hearthstone, weapon removal is at large. I think it is safe to say that Acidic Swamp Ooze is one of the most commonly seen neutral 2 drops.
Generally in high level play, most players running the ooze, will wait to play it until they can get enough value off it, that generally means destroying a weapon with at least more than one charge left on it (the exception being gorehowl). With this in mind, I think running Toxic Sewer Ooze in decks is actually more powerful than it gets credit for. The ability to remove one charge is far superior to destroying the whole weapon, as long as the weapon has one charge left, which is very likely considering the amount of low charge weapons in the game (Rogue hero power, Fiery War Axe, Jade Claws) All of these weapons only have two charges, which means after the initial attack toxic sewer ooze's value increases exponentially.
Look at it like this, why would use a battlecry that destroys a whole weapon, when it only has one charge left? This is why I believe Sewer ooze is a very viable option.
I'm going to be testing some decks running Toxic Sewer ooze as a one off, with two Swamp oozes as well, I believe that the combination of these three minions will be enough to keep aggressive weapons at bay. I am very curious to hear what you guys think and to discuss weapon counters in general.
Cheers!
Your explanation to why a 4/3 for 3 mana is better than a 3/2 for 2 mana with a better effect was crap. Acidic swamp ooze is a lot more reliable.
Why would i use a card that removes one durability while i have another that can destroy a weapon alltogether. If i ever need weapon removal #4 or 5 i will consider it but for the #1 and 3 ooze+harrison is infinitely better. Like you said sometimes it does not matter whether you destroy or just remove one durability. But sometimes it does like when doomhammer jaraxxus or ashbringer is present
Double the trouble
For the Toxic Sewer Ooze to see play, it should...actually it is crap design. Acidic ooze is insanely powerful, in my opinion, and toxic ooze would only be playable if it had an equivalent effect, or if the two cards switched effects, which I think would be reasonable.
The problem with Toxic Sewer Ooze is that it doesn't help you near as much against Pirate Warrior. With Rusty Hook, Upgrade!, and Bloodsail Cultist, the weapons will often have more than 1 durability.
In what deck do you play it? It makes no sense to play 2 Acidic Ooze in any Reno deck, and it makes no sense to play these Oozes outside Reno decks. Because you never want to play such shitty minions in any other deck archetype.
Hall of Fame (ignore list): aleathas, Baylith, cendol, DiamondDM13, Dominieq, doomr, glitterprincess, hamtarofr, Heck, Jwigg33, Kaladin, Krewger, Legend_Entomber, libertyprime, Maukiepaukie, PandarenHero, randjob, s2mikey, SchruteBucks, The_Giratina, TheWamts, ticandtac, tictactucroc, tsudecimo, WaffleMonstr
WTF did I just read? This logic only makes sense if Acidic Swamp Ooze had lower stats due to its "stronger effect." But it doesn't, so this logic sucks.
My logic is that removing the final charge on a weapon with toxic sewer ooze is more efficient than destroying a weapon with one charge left with acidic swamp ooze. I am in no way claiming that Acidic swamp ooze is less reliable than Toxic Sewer ooze, I am only saying that due to the abundance of weapons with 2 or less charges in the current meta, Toxic Sewer Ooze is a lot better than people have given it credit for
The only play we'll see when it comes to highlander decks such as renolock or renomage, but then removing one card for another weapon removal can make other some matchups even worse (therefore, having 2 useless cards in your hand).
So it's actually a bad card by itself, but I might give it a try If I faced 10 pirates in a row, then it's going to be worth having it.
EDIT: Oh, one more thing, if hunter and paladin becomes popular anytime, I would love to give this card a try.
I like elementals and totems.
That is a valid point, when a weapon has more than one charge, Acidic Swamp Ooze is superior in every facet. But if we could just hypothesize here, lets say that you are fighting a warrior who has one charge on his Arcanite Reaper left, and you have a Swamp Ooze, and a Toxic Sewer Ooze in your hand, It would make more sense to use the Sewer Ooze and remove the final charge, rather than use the Acidic Swamp Ooze right?
Now I want it to be clear that I don't think Toxic Sewer Ooze is a meta breaking card or anything like that. But I think based on the current meta, and the overabundance of low charge weapons, It is a certainly viable tech, at least as a one off.
Your argument that toxic sewer ooze is superior to acidic swamp ooze when removing a one durability weapon doesn't make too much sense...
How is destroying the weapon with small ooze any worse than...destroying it with big ooze? Just because you're losing potential value on small ooze doesn't make a card that has LESS POTENTIAL VALUE to start with any better. In fact, ooze is less mana to cast anyway, which means you will be able to cast it in more situations. Also, if your argument is that you're holding both oozes at the same time, it is better to play big ooze against a low charge weapon, true...but you may as well be running 2 small oozes instead if you're in that position.
In a deck with 3 oozes overall, I SUPPOSE your points make sense, but why not just run harrison instead?
Rogue Deckbuilder. Midrange/Combo player.
Rogue Deckbuilder. Midrange/Combo player.
So I guess someone with a commercial driver's license should never drive a car and always a truck because otherwise they'd be wasting the "potential" of their license LOL.
S39 Legend - Quest Rogue, S38 Legend - Murloc Paladin, S37 Legend - Miracle Rogue, S36 Top 200 Legend - Aggro Shaman, S35 - Finished Rank 51 Legend - Aggro Shaman, S34 Legend - Aggro Shaman
Wake up from your dreams, Toxic is unplayable, albeit marginally.
Acidic Swamp Ooze is vastly superior over Toxic Sewer Ooze because it costs one less (allowing great flexibility), removes entire weapons, and as a side 2 health is a good number - it is not a pingable health total, while it eats 3 damage removals as naturally as Toxic Sewer Ooze do.
That said, the argument for putting this in Reno decks is reasonable (as an extra Ooze), except for the fact that at turn 3 you'd rather be removing their pirates instead of removing their weapon.
My greatest achievement yet:
Not disenchanting my double Shadowbomber
You can maybe put it in reno decks but aside from that not really.. I get the point that you play a little better body for the effect that's similar to ooze sometimes but it's quite bad since you want the effect and not the body.
While most common weapons in a majority of cases have one charge left after attacking such as ,Truesilver, Fiery war axe, Archanite Reaper, Rouge Hero power etc. You are left not being able to counter other weapons to an impactful extent such as Doomhamer, Ashbringer etc. While Swamp Ooze on the other hand out right destroys said weapon. In the right situation Toxic Ooze is fine, however in the general case Swamp Ooze is far more reliable.