âš™
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
I'm on board with you bud, the interaction was cool for its time, but now with the proliferation of cards that are out now, I totally agree with you. Other cards that needs nerfing is Circle of Healing to 1 and remove the elemental tag on Mana Cyclone or make Elemental Evocation a 1 cost. Casting out Siamat on turn 5 is just shear stupid.
It's been a long time since I got into a good aggro vs aggro or midrange. Nowadays everyone just playing combo or control decks. I'm tired of 30 minute games every game which is all Blizzard/Team 5 is catering too. What is hope they do like MTG did after a while came out with an extended format where more set are included. I would really like to see them come out with a 3rd mode other than standard and wild. Something in the middle, but I guess that will divide the player base too much. Be a cool what if though.
A staple in MANY decks lmao. 5 years ago
Circle of healing isn't the problem, it's northshire cleric. Healing 1 would make circle into another Charge! kind of card. Played less than .01% of the time. Make Northshire cost 2 and it's an entirely different deck. Your nerf suggestion for Elemental Evocation is beyond idiotic. Innervate is a card. You want to make elemental evocation into an innervate for only elemental minions?
And Siamat on 5 isn't even that bad. Have you ever played against Edwin? Or played Edwin. I've probably won 30 games on turn 3-4 and lost as many from the card.
Mage has nothing game breaking in the early game. It's best turn, is a turn 2 Zephyrs with evocation and coin for a 6/6 Edwin on turn 2. This might be something to complain about but Mage is in the worst spot of any class and just got the nerf hammer...
I face aggro quite a bit. In legend I face aggro warrior far more often than control. I face zoolocks and murlocs too. Sorry this expansion doesn't have a tier 0 rogue deck that just going face nets you above 50% win rate. Actually not sorry.
Sac Pact can't only be used against Jaraxxus, it can also destroy Demon-Type minions on the board. An actual reasonable use of the card.
No, I think that a player who is playing a singleton deck should be able to discover a card via Zephrys that wins the game when their Warlock opponent has foolishly played Jaraxxus. That's actually a lot of conditions. You have to be running a singleton deck with Zephrys. You have to draw Zephrys. Your opponent has to be a Warlock who runs Jaraxxus. Your opponent has to make the incredible mistake of playing Jaraxxus before Zephrys.
Singleton decks are instantly shut down by things like bombs (and Nerubians in Wild). I think this is a perfectly fair balance to that.
It's not like this is some crazy combo that you absolutely cannot play around. This is nothing more than an interaction you personally dislike, which will affect very few games. I don't really care if they change it, but I'm totally fine if they don't. I'm just saying don't hold your breath, because this is one of the least important sources of ginned-up outrage I've ever seen on these forums, and believe me, that is saying something.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
And Jaraxxus is totally fine against decks that don't have Zephrys, or after Zephrys has already been used. An actual reasonable use of THAT card.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
The argument was more along the lines of - Sacrificial Pact killing the enemy hero outright is not reasonable now that it is so widely available to players who don't put it into their deck or even play the correct class for it.
It adds no strategic depth to the game, but removes it - a card with a highly drastic effect is no longer playable, for literally no reason.
It adds no entertainment value to the game - it might be fun to kill Jaraxxus with a Sac Pact but it will never happen because no one can include him in their deck anymore.
There is no reasonable use of Jaraxxus while Zephrys exists. He sits dead in your hand while you wait for Zephrys to be played. Zephrys is played and kills you with a Fireball. You can't play Jaraxxus next turn because you are dead. Zephrys wins this trade every single time and that isn't to his own credit as a card, its because this interaction (which was completely fine in vanilla days, but is now absolutely toxic due to it being available to one third of decks on the standard ladder without them having to sacrifice a deck slot to it) exists.
Re: "Jaraxxus is fine against non-Zephrys decks" - He should also be at the very least playable against Zephrys decks, given that Zephrys isn't a tech, but a staple in over 30% of ladder decks. A counter is fine, even a hard counter (see Flare vs all Secrets, Ooze vs all Weapons or Hex/Polymorph vs Tirion Fordring). A counter should not, however, deliver instant victory. If Jaraxxus needs more counterplay than Oozing his weapon or "just hit him in the face," then the card needs to be completely redesigned so that it doesn't replace your hero, because a staple card that punishes Jaraxxus by instantly winning is quite clearly not acceptable. As I said before, if there was a card in the classic set that Zephrys could generate, which instantly killed Dr Boom, Hagatha or Zul'Jin, there would be a fucking uproar, and rightly so. Jaraxxus may not be a hero card but he functions as one.
I'll let it be known that I don't sit in the anti-Zephrys camp in general, I think he is a cool card and adds a lot of strategic depth to the game generally speaking, but this interaction is an exception and I feel it could easily be removed without negatively impacting Zephrys as a card (after all no one plays Jaraxxus anyway huhuhu) while improving the experience for any player (casual, professional, whatever) who wants to put Jaraxxus in their deck and not immediately get unreasonably punished for doing so. Only upsides and no downsides.
i didnt mean *that* perfect of a card. Way to exploit the wording and ruin it for everyone, zephrys. I just wanted like... a little bit perfect of a card.
I would actually love to see a singleton-deck build-around legendary that could insta-kill hero cards. I dislike hero cards as much as you hate this interaction. So here we are, back to a matter of opinion about two cards that have zero impact on the meta either way.
By the way, there are plenty of individual cards that sit dead in your hand forever against certain decks, so that's not much of an argument. If Jaraxxus is literally your one and only win condition, your deck is terrible anyway and you deserve to lose. Jaraxxus the card may never be able to stand up against Zephrys the card, but it's nobody's fault but yours if your Jaraxxus deck can't stand up against the singleton deck.
I don't know where you even get the idea that Jaraxxus "should" be playable against Zephrys decks. There have always been plenty of deck archetypes that stand absolutely no chance against, say, a Jaraxxus Control deck. That's why he used to be so popular. He may not have insta-killed them, but the outcome was just as inevitable.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Jaraxxus is only playable from getting it from your own Zephyrs. In wild Gul'dan is infinitely better. Control warlock in standard is garbage. Jaraxxus will never be included in standard. When you think about it, the warrior quest is a better hero power and it's the worst quest in the game.
Now to get Jaraxxus from your own Zephyrs requires a situation with low health and low cards. Zephyr sees it as a win condition in this scenario only. If your opponent hasn't already played Zephyrs, it's unlikely you would win vs a Tirron or Fireball anyway.
It's an interaction that Blizzard chose to include. I think they find this interaction hilarious and it won't be changed. It's a feature not a bug.
Its not about liking or disliking the interaction. From a design philosophy and game balance standpoint "Draw card x, if card y has been played, win the game." Is atrocious design, especially in the instance that card x is not a tech card specifically played for matchups with decks containing card y, but a staple that appears in a third of decks in the standard metagame and has incredible utility beyond this use. With that said I do think a card that is completely fucking useless in almost all other cases, and only playable in one class is borderline acceptable (Sac Pact prior to the introduction of Zephrys). When card x completely locks a player out of playing card y, while also fulfilling every other role in the game, card x is too powerful. As stated before I think the power level of Zephrys otherwise is reasonable considering the cost of activation, but generating Sac Pact against Jaraxxus is a step too far.
High cost cards or cards that aren't particularly useful in a specific matchup can sit dead in your hand for a long time, this is true. But that's either because the game ended before you accrued enough mana to use the card, a situation where the card would be useful didn't arise during the game, or you failed to see a way to use the card creatively in a mathup where it is not normally very useful. This is far removed from not being allowed to play a card because you will automatically lose the game every single time if your opponent is holding the single-card answer, or happens to draw it before you win.
"There have always been plenty of deck archetypes that stand absolutely no chance against, say, a Jaraxxus Control deck. That's why he used to be so popular. He may not have insta-killed them, but the outcome was just as inevitable." This is false. The worst polarisation we have ever seen was Boomsday meta's Odd Warrior vs Quest Rogue, which was over 80% in favour of the Quest Rogue at a high level of play, but at no point has it ever been impossible to win any given matchup. Additionally, steep polarisation of this sort has been a source of numerous complaints in the past and was very much seen as a problem that needed to be fixed. In any case, no one has suggested Warlock is incapable of beating Zephrys with Jaraxxus in their deck, simply that it is detrimental to game balance and entertainment value that a card has been (quite unnecessarily) rendered unplayable. More to the point than meta polarisation, however - there has never before existed a card that you can't play for fear of immediately losing the game to a single card that is run in a large percentage of decks, neither should there be. Players should be free to use their classic class legendary (no matter how bad it is) without being forced into not playing it because of a tired relic meme from vanilla days has now become a significant force in the meta.
Bottom line here is I'm not trying to express my opinion about whether hero cards or instagibbing Jaraxxus is "fun" or not, I'm trying to explain from a design perspective that making a card completely unplayable only serves to take something away from the game and does not add anything to it. If effectively removing Jaraxxus from the card pool would lead to a blossoming of several new strategies that he was holding back (which could well have actually happened with Dr. Boom - Mad Genius), then I'd be all for it, but it does not. It just gives the player base one less card to play with.
Yeah I agree, it is really bad design. It's basically adding hate cards, to a card that isn't even played ,for no reason at all. I still don't understand why Charge is a basic warrior card. Complete garbage card that is confusing with rush as a mechanic now. Every TCG has River Croc type basics that get power creeped out of existence, which is fine. River Croc is a free card that teaches people how to play the game, not a standard class legendary that cost 1600 dust. Mage has toni, druid has Cen, pally has Tirion in every standard meta. Warlock has a unplayable card in metas with multiple combo decks which is pretty much every meta now and they made it worse.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Card Design ChampionBlizzard, please allow me to play Jaraxxus.
It honestly shouldn't be an interaction though...just hall of fame it at this point
Keymaster Alabaster come faster
Some people like playing fun decks rather than net decking whatever in on the top of HSreplay.
Why r u saying change it and return it latter as of wild players don't exist !! We have feeling too 🙄
Zyph is played in wild much more than ots played in standard, caz of Reno Jackson and other HL cards, add to that the fact that u have much more options to pick from when playing HL in wild 😶
=)
How old does something have to be to call thread necromancy?