Hell, just to make things fun, they should allow other cards to interact with Jaraxxus.
Malganis makes him have up to 17 HP, and adds 2 attack as well (so 5 with weapon, 3 without). Same with demonfuse except for 3 instead of 2. Light's champion removes any buffs.
Ok, the whole arguing that “Jaraxxus isn’t good anyway” or “The interaction is fun” is incredibly stupid.
How is it fun to consistently discover a card that just instantly wins you the game against Jaraxxus? And that can happen even if he developed a huge board advantage and played better than you. That is the definition of not fun and sometimes having the unskillled player win the game.
Then, it’s not only about putting Jaraxxus into your deck. What about the Rogues or the Priests? You’re just left with a dead card that you spent your resources on and could have been a serious advantage (esp for priest) just because the opponent just has a “win the game” card?
Then there’s the people that just wanna play Jaraxxus. Let’s rip them all off the fun just because hey Jaraxxus sucks anyway!
Ok, the whole arguing that “Jaraxxus isn’t good anyway” or “The interaction is fun” is incredibly stupid.
How is it fun to consistently discover a card that just instantly wins you the game against Jaraxxus? And that can happen even if he developed a huge board advantage and played better than you. That is the definition of not fun and sometimes having the unskillled player win the game.
Then, it’s not only about putting Jaraxxus into your deck. What about the Rogues or the Priests? You’re just left with a dead card that you spent your resources on and could have been a serious advantage (esp for priest) just because the opponent just has a “win the game” card?
Then there’s the people that just wanna play Jaraxxus. Let’s rip them all off the fun just because hey Jaraxxus sucks anyway!
This serves no arguing.
TL;DR: just remove the damn interaction
So. For one: For priest to even *get* Jaraxxus the opponent would need to have put Jaraxxus in their own deck which... in and of itself is already ridiculous, since he was still bad in Rise of Shadows without Zeph OR Deathknight Guldan in the format, and is still bad even disregarding Zeph.
For two, what it does is reward knowledge of card interaction. You know... One aspect of skill? The same way you'd need to understand that Immune only prevents damage, and not destroy or transform. Or understanding the order that cards activate in is based on "whenever" "when" and "after". Or understanding how Crazed Alchemist turns aura buffs like Stormwind Champion into permanent buffs. Or understanding correct secret sequencing. Or understanding spell sequencing for legal targets (shadow word pain *can* target minions with more than 4 attack, but the buff needs to happen after the spell is already cast) Zeph is a skill testing card unto itself because it requires understanding why each card being offered is offered, not just blindly playing something offered.
For three, it's actually supremely fun to discover a card that instantly wins you the game because your opponent intentionally played a bad card. Any time I'm in wild and play a Secret Paladin (which is on the decline lately) and gets their entire gameplan destroyed by skulking geist? Fantastic feeling to completely demolish them. Any time counterspell stops a Time Warp? Priceless. Whenever unseen sabateur casts an opponent mechathun's cataclysm, discarding their win condition? Wonderful.
It doesn't matter who is/isn't playing him. The option to do so should be there and it no longer is. I'm all for counters existing, even relatively hard counters, but "win the game" is when a counter becomes TOO hard. The only reason Jaraxxus doesn't see play, aside from Zephrys, is that since Bloodreaver Gul'Dan rotated, Warlock has been blessed with abysmal late game cards. If there was a viable slow Warlock strategy, Jaraxxus would pretty much be a must to deal with Control Warrior. So using our foresight, given the possibility that Warlocks get some late game cards in the next set, Jaraxxus should be fixed so that this (completely pointless btw) interaction is no longer in place.
It should be noted that when the game was first released there was no way to generate a Sacrificial Pact unless at least one player had it in their deck. This meant other Warlocks could include a copy as a tech that was completely dead outside of the mirror but otherwise you would never run into it. Now a days there are plenty of cards that can generate random spells and Zephrys, which will offer Pact against Jaraxxus 100% of the time.
A final note re: "Jaraxxus is bad." Jaraxxus' stock changes with the meta. He's a great anti-control tool when slower Warlock decks are also viable but as mentioned previously - Jaraxxus spent a year and a half being overshadowed by the drastically overpowered Bloodreaver Gul'Dan, and since the last rotation Warlock hasn't had any real late game. However, just because he is a bad card now doesn't mean he's doomed to be bad forever (look at Cenarius) or that he should be. Fixing this shitty Sac Pact interaction would be a good step towards making Jaraxxus viable again, and as far as I'm concerned, more cards being viable = a healthier game.
I think at this point it's obvious some people here are simply trolling and prolonging the argument artificially, just for the sake of it.
I guess that goes for most online debates, but reading this is painful. The defenders of the status quo grasp every straw they can find, no matter how embarrassing. All that to insist that Zephrys, an already extremely powerful neutral card, should be able to instantly win the game if one single risky Warlock card was played, the only card in the entire game affected this way. This is the hill they want to die on.
The best argument ever: "Jaraxxus is a bad card anyway"...
I think at this point it's obvious some people here are simply trolling and prolonging the argument artificially, just for the sake of it.
I guess that goes for most online debates, but reading this is painful. The defenders of the status quo grasp every straw they can find, no matter how embarrassing. All that to insist that Zephrys, an already extremely powerful neutral card, should be able to instantly win the game if one single risky Warlock card was played, the only card in the entire game affected this way. This is the hill they want to die on.
The best argument ever: "Jaraxxus is a bad card anyway"...
I'm not dying on any hills for the sake of Zephrys, but I will certainly defend the status quo when people wrongly treat it as a mistake that needs to be corrected.
In the original release of the game, this interaction was known. It was allowed to go live. It has never been changed. This means it is intentional, not a mistake. Yes, it often catches newer players by surprise, but that's part of the fun for people who are aware of it.
Because of this interaction, Jaraxxus was always going to get worse over time, especially in Wild. As more ways of obtaining other-class cards enter the game, jaraxxus becomes more and more of a risky play. Anyone who understands the evolution of collectable card games would have been able to see this coming.
So now we've reached the point where Sacrificial Pact is easily obtainable by all classes, consigning Jaraxxus to Dumpster status temporarily in Classic and permanently in Wild. When Zephrys rotates out, Jaraxxus will be more playable again in Standard.
All of this is OK. It's just one of the many ways CCGs change over time. Individual cards get better or worse, and the players adapt.
If they one day decide to buff Jaraxxus by removing the interaction, that will be fine, too, but I would not expect it unless there's some major Demon-themed event they are trying to promote. Outside of that, the interaction is not really going to affect the meta either way, so it's simply not worth changing. That's why the "Jaraxxus is bad anyway" argument is actually relevant.
Imagine if they "updated" Jaraxxus to a hero card, that would be something (balance included). It would probably bring control warlock back from the twisting nether.
when you handbuff jaraxxus, you do not get increased attack and health. Only idiots think the interaction makes sense.
It's not even about making sense, though. It's just a fun interaction that once provided an Achilles' heel in an archetype that could feel a bit oppressive. It's been a long time since those days, of course, but making this change would not create any real benefit to any significant number of players. It simply doesn't make sense to do it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"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
Lmao people are trying so hard to defend Zephyrs. Jaraxxus already has a 15 hp limit and people still think that sac pact is “fun” because it’s a counter to an “oppressive” card. Even though 1. The power creep of cards have enabled a lot of burst 2. The flavor argument is faulty because why doesn’t he recieve buffs? (Ex:Mal’Ganis) 3. Ironic people say it gives you counter play when it’s just an insta-win. I’m fine with pyroblast, because atleast it spent the enemy’s entire turn and you have 5 hp. With zephyrs you just die on the spot. I bet most Of you defending zephyrs got your ass whopped by jaraxxus because you were too greedy/Control. (Control Warriors) and managed your resources horrendously, so now you get a “get out of jail free card” per se.
when you handbuff jaraxxus, you do not get increased attack and health. Only idiots think the interaction makes sense.
It's not even about making sense, though. It's just a fun interaction that once provided an Achilles' heel in an archetype that could feel a bit oppressive. It's been a long time since those days, of course, but making this change would not create any real benefit to any significant number of players. It simply doesn't make sense to do it.
It makes sense to do it because it improves the QoL of the card and therefore the game. It’s actually highly detrimental to the player experience that a card, particularly such an interesting one, effectively cannot be played because about half the decks in Standard have access to a spell that wins the game on the spot if you play it. As stated previously, counters are fine, even hard counters, but “destroy the enemy hero” is when the counter has become too hard. If your turn 4 giant gets shot up by a Big Game Hunter it’s kind of annoying but at least you are still alive and can continue playing.
You mention that “Jaraxxus is bad anyway” is a valid argument but I challenge that. For one, Jaraxxus being good or bad is dependent on the shifting meta. Granted right now he can’t be top tier because Warlock is severely lacking in late game, but a single new set release or card buff could flip that on its head. The problem presented by Zephrys > Pact is that Jaraxxus CANNOT be good until Zephrys rotates out in 2021. There should be room for players to slot Jaraxxus into their decks in control heavy metas (in which he is good) but there will not be, because Zephrys will still be everywhere in the meta and even played in the very control decks Jaraxxus is there to counter. Not only that but considering Jaraxxus is significantly weaker than he was in vanilla because other cards now exist, he doesn’t need this weakness any more (which was only available to other Warlocks anyway).
Don’t get me wrong, I believe there should be a punish for every card, but instant defeat is too harsh. Remove the interaction for a better game. 👍
I'm not dying on any hills for the sake of Zephrys, but I will certainly defend the status quo when people wrongly treat it as a mistake that needs to be corrected.
In the original release of the game, this interaction was known. It was allowed to go live. It has never been changed. This means it is intentional, not a mistake. Yes, it often catches newer players by surprise, but that's part of the fun for people who are aware of it.
Because of this interaction, Jaraxxus was always going to get worse over time, especially in Wild. As more ways of obtaining other-class cards enter the game, jaraxxus becomes more and more of a risky play. Anyone who understands the evolution of collectable card games would have been able to see this coming.
So now we've reached the point where Sacrificial Pact is easily obtainable by all classes, consigning Jaraxxus to Dumpster status temporarily in Classic and permanently in Wild. When Zephrys rotates out, Jaraxxus will be more playable again in Standard.
All of this is OK. It's just one of the many ways CCGs change over time. Individual cards get better or worse, and the players adapt.
If they one day decide to buff Jaraxxus by removing the interaction, that will be fine, too, but I would not expect it unless there's some major Demon-themed event they are trying to promote. Outside of that, the interaction is not really going to affect the meta either way, so it's simply not worth changing. That's why the "Jaraxxus is bad anyway" argument is actually relevant.
The interaction between Sacrificial Pact and Jaraxxus was intentional in the original release but not as a weakness that was destined or even meant to get worse over time. Outside of your prophetic wisdom, generating cards out of thin air was not part of normal card game evolution, since Hearthsthone was one of the first that even made such things possible as a purely digital card game. The concept of classes was used specifically to limit what each player could and couldn't do. And it wasn't until BRM, a year after the initial release and about 2 years after the beta phase, that Nefarian made it possible for the first time to obtain entirely random spells from another class during a match, and now, 5 years after the release, we have a card that discovers "the perfect card" beyond class limitations.
The dozens of changes to the core set indicate that many parts of the original version of Hearthstone were more or less fine at launch but needed to change as the game moved on. I don't see why the Sacrificial Pact interaction shouldn't be one of those cases, when the card turned from "hardly worth a slot in your Warlock deck" to "can get reliably discovered by any class at a most opportune moment and in some rare cases wins you the game instantly".
Indeed, the game keeps changing, and cards can get worse. This is where we are right now, one of the two cards is getting worse: It's either Lord J remaining borderline unplayable for the time being because of Zephrys, or SacPact losing its instant win potential. And I think the little viability of a class defining late game card is worth preserving over a fringe case in which a highly situational spell can end the game out of nowhere.
The interaction isn't a "mistake", it's not a glitch or anything like that, but it is unintuitive and feels off, and now it creates a situation where it makes the game less fun by heavily discouraging Warlock players from using one of their most iconic legendaries, and might impact the classes' potential moving forward. There is no good reason to keep it that way.
And the "it's a bad card anyway" argument is plain stupid. Even worse than the very similar "Nobody cares about Wild" argument that I've heard too many times during the Barnes discussions.
Meta-relevance (or Standard, for that matter) isn't and shouldn't ever be the only thing to consider when discussing card changes, because "the meta" or "Standard" isn't the entire game. It might not affect the hardcore competitive Standard players, but they are just a fraction of all players. If you only care about the meta, then it's irrelevant to YOU, and to YOU, it's not worth changing. You might as well say "it doesn't concern me, so it doesn't matter", which is a ludicrous argument in any public debate.
Whatever you deem a "significant number of affected players" for it to matter is entirely arbitrary, both the number (what would be significant?) and the very concept of a large enough number of affected players as a prerequisite for intervention. Besides, there is no way of telling how many players are affected and would benefit from it anyway. Team5 probably can find out how many players used Jaraxxus before and after the release of Uldum, but they won't be able to tell how many players don't play Jaraxxus anymore now and in future releases because of Zephrys.
Maybe you remember Tess Greymane, a card that was certainly not part of any serious meta deck, and one day it was changed in a similar fashion to Yogg-Saron for "consistency". Some people were upset about it, because they actually liked and used the card, and saw it getting worse. And the developers changed the card back. They deemed the fun of a few players more important than their own understanding of consistency. Regardless of how many people were affected by it in the end, this was the best solution for everyone.
Alternate option: remove Sacrificial Pact from the Zephrys pool of cards. Maybe always, but certainly when Jaraxxus is on board.
I mean, I think the SacPact/Jaraxxus interaction is kinda funny, but it should be relegated to the realm of silly and rare, rather than consistently available.
I'm not dying on any hills for the sake of Zephrys, but I will certainly defend the status quo when people wrongly treat it as a mistake that needs to be corrected.
In the original release of the game, this interaction was known. It was allowed to go live. It has never been changed. This means it is intentional, not a mistake. Yes, it often catches newer players by surprise, but that's part of the fun for people who are aware of it.
Because of this interaction, Jaraxxus was always going to get worse over time, especially in Wild. As more ways of obtaining other-class cards enter the game, jaraxxus becomes more and more of a risky play. Anyone who understands the evolution of collectable card games would have been able to see this coming.
So now we've reached the point where Sacrificial Pact is easily obtainable by all classes, consigning Jaraxxus to Dumpster status temporarily in Classic and permanently in Wild. When Zephrys rotates out, Jaraxxus will be more playable again in Standard.
All of this is OK. It's just one of the many ways CCGs change over time. Individual cards get better or worse, and the players adapt.
If they one day decide to buff Jaraxxus by removing the interaction, that will be fine, too, but I would not expect it unless there's some major Demon-themed event they are trying to promote. Outside of that, the interaction is not really going to affect the meta either way, so it's simply not worth changing. That's why the "Jaraxxus is bad anyway" argument is actually relevant.
The interaction between Sacrificial Pact and Jaraxxus was intentional in the original release but not as a weakness that was destined or even meant to get worse over time. Outside of your prophetic wisdom, generating cards out of thin air was not part of normal card game evolution, since Hearthsthone was one of the first that even made such things possible as a purely digital card game. The concept of classes was used specifically to limit what each player could and couldn't do. And it wasn't until BRM, a year after the initial release and about 2 years after the beta phase, that Nefarian made it possible for the first time to obtain entirely random spells from another class during a match, and now, 5 years after the release, we have a card that discovers "the perfect card" beyond class limitations.
The dozens of changes to the core set indicate that many parts of the original version of Hearthstone were more or less fine at launch but needed to change as the game moved on. I don't see why the Sacrificial Pact interaction shouldn't be one of those cases, when the card turned from "hardly worth a slot in your Warlock deck" to "can get reliably discovered by any class at a most opportune moment and in some rare cases wins you the game instantly".
Indeed, the game keeps changing, and cards can get worse. This is where we are right now, one of the two cards is getting worse: It's either Lord J remaining borderline unplayable for the time being because of Zephrys, or SacPact losing its instant win potential. And I think the little viability of a class defining late game card is worth preserving over a fringe case in which a highly situational spell can end the game out of nowhere.
The interaction isn't a "mistake", it's not a glitch or anything like that, but it is unintuitive and feels off, and now it creates a situation where it makes the game less fun by heavily discouraging Warlock players from using one of their most iconic legendaries, and might impact the classes' potential moving forward. There is no good reason to keep it that way.
And the "it's a bad card anyway" argument is plain stupid. Even worse than the very similar "Nobody cares about Wild" argument that I've heard too many times during the Barnes discussions.
Meta-relevance (or Standard, for that matter) isn't and shouldn't ever be the only thing to consider when discussing card changes, because "the meta" or "Standard" isn't the entire game. It might not affect the hardcore competitive Standard players, but they are just a fraction of all players. If you only care about the meta, then it's irrelevant to YOU, and to YOU, it's not worth changing. You might as well say "it doesn't concern me, so it doesn't matter", which is a ludicrous argument in any public debate.
Whatever you deem a "significant number of affected players" for it to matter is entirely arbitrary, both the number (what would be significant?) and the very concept of a large enough number of affected players as a prerequisite for intervention. Besides, there is no way of telling how many players are affected and would benefit from it anyway. Team5 probably can find out how many players used Jaraxxus before and after the release of Uldum, but they won't be able to tell how many players don't play Jaraxxus anymore now and in future releases because of Zephrys.
Maybe you remember Tess Greymane, a card that was certainly not part of any serious meta deck, and one day it was changed in a similar fashion to Yogg-Saron for "consistency". Some people were upset about it, because they actually liked and used the card, and saw it getting worse. And the developers changed the card back. They deemed the fun of a few players more important than their own understanding of consistency. Regardless of how many people were affected by it in the end, this was the best solution for everyone.
That's how such things should get handled.
This post pretty much got it spot on, only bit I disagree with is "It might not affect the hardcore competitive Standard players, but they are just a fraction of all players. If you only care about the meta, then it's irrelevant to YOU, and to YOU, it's not worth changing." Actually I think the competitive HS player is always considering Jaraxxus' viability when deck building. I very much care for competitive play and it is for this reason that I want to see Jaraxxus be competitively viable. It opens up options for Warlocks to deal with grindy control strategies.
Alternate option: remove Sacrificial Pact from the Zephrys pool of cards. Maybe always, but certainly when Jaraxxus is on board.
I mean, I think the SacPact/Jaraxxus interaction is kinda funny, but it should be relegated to the realm of silly and rare, rather than consistently available.
I prefer removing the Jaraxxus interaction because efficiently dealing with a large demon on the board is actually a fair use of Sac Pact as "the perfect card" and aside from this stupid ass interaction with Jaraxxus, it is exactly the kind of card that should exist in the Zephrys pool.
It reminds me when The mage DK come out i wanted to make a majordomo executus deck were i played jaina 1st get lifesteal on my elementals then get him killed and get a heal 8 every turn.
1 guess how that turned out.
It didn't work was a bit upsetting since it took a while to get play it and not die on the spot. I thought it might work since it from a card and it should keep/get a elemental tag since its rag a card that a elemental.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Jaraxxus is not a Hero, is a Minion, and you play as Minion when you use him.
Remember his battlecry: Destroy your Hero and replace It with Lord Jaraxxus.
Minions only spells such as Starfall or Siphon Soul do not affect Jar when he is a hero. Demon effect cards such as Demonfuse or Light's Champion do not affect Jar as well.
Why should Sac Pact be an exception.
Once the battlecry triggers, he is a hero. Cards like Mind Blast will damage him.
Hell, just to make things fun, they should allow other cards to interact with Jaraxxus.
Malganis makes him have up to 17 HP, and adds 2 attack as well (so 5 with weapon, 3 without). Same with demonfuse except for 3 instead of 2. Light's champion removes any buffs.
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
Ok, the whole arguing that “Jaraxxus isn’t good anyway” or “The interaction is fun” is incredibly stupid.
How is it fun to consistently discover a card that just instantly wins you the game against Jaraxxus? And that can happen even if he developed a huge board advantage and played better than you. That is the definition of not fun and sometimes having the unskillled player win the game.
Then, it’s not only about putting Jaraxxus into your deck. What about the Rogues or the Priests? You’re just left with a dead card that you spent your resources on and could have been a serious advantage (esp for priest) just because the opponent just has a “win the game” card?
Then there’s the people that just wanna play Jaraxxus. Let’s rip them all off the fun just because hey Jaraxxus sucks anyway!
This serves no arguing.
TL;DR: just remove the damn interaction
So. For one:
For priest to even *get* Jaraxxus the opponent would need to have put Jaraxxus in their own deck which... in and of itself is already ridiculous, since he was still bad in Rise of Shadows without Zeph OR Deathknight Guldan in the format, and is still bad even disregarding Zeph.
For two, what it does is reward knowledge of card interaction.
You know... One aspect of skill? The same way you'd need to understand that Immune only prevents damage, and not destroy or transform. Or understanding the order that cards activate in is based on "whenever" "when" and "after". Or understanding how Crazed Alchemist turns aura buffs like Stormwind Champion into permanent buffs. Or understanding correct secret sequencing. Or understanding spell sequencing for legal targets (shadow word pain *can* target minions with more than 4 attack, but the buff needs to happen after the spell is already cast)
Zeph is a skill testing card unto itself because it requires understanding why each card being offered is offered, not just blindly playing something offered.
For three, it's actually supremely fun to discover a card that instantly wins you the game because your opponent intentionally played a bad card.
Any time I'm in wild and play a Secret Paladin (which is on the decline lately) and gets their entire gameplan destroyed by skulking geist? Fantastic feeling to completely demolish them. Any time counterspell stops a Time Warp? Priceless. Whenever unseen sabateur casts an opponent mechathun's cataclysm, discarding their win condition? Wonderful.
Who the hell is playing Jaraxus though?
It doesn't matter who is/isn't playing him. The option to do so should be there and it no longer is. I'm all for counters existing, even relatively hard counters, but "win the game" is when a counter becomes TOO hard. The only reason Jaraxxus doesn't see play, aside from Zephrys, is that since Bloodreaver Gul'Dan rotated, Warlock has been blessed with abysmal late game cards. If there was a viable slow Warlock strategy, Jaraxxus would pretty much be a must to deal with Control Warrior. So using our foresight, given the possibility that Warlocks get some late game cards in the next set, Jaraxxus should be fixed so that this (completely pointless btw) interaction is no longer in place.
It should be noted that when the game was first released there was no way to generate a Sacrificial Pact unless at least one player had it in their deck. This meant other Warlocks could include a copy as a tech that was completely dead outside of the mirror but otherwise you would never run into it. Now a days there are plenty of cards that can generate random spells and Zephrys, which will offer Pact against Jaraxxus 100% of the time.
A final note re: "Jaraxxus is bad." Jaraxxus' stock changes with the meta. He's a great anti-control tool when slower Warlock decks are also viable but as mentioned previously - Jaraxxus spent a year and a half being overshadowed by the drastically overpowered Bloodreaver Gul'Dan, and since the last rotation Warlock hasn't had any real late game. However, just because he is a bad card now doesn't mean he's doomed to be bad forever (look at Cenarius) or that he should be. Fixing this shitty Sac Pact interaction would be a good step towards making Jaraxxus viable again, and as far as I'm concerned, more cards being viable = a healthier game.
I think at this point it's obvious some people here are simply trolling and prolonging the argument artificially, just for the sake of it.
I guess that goes for most online debates, but reading this is painful. The defenders of the status quo grasp every straw they can find, no matter how embarrassing. All that to insist that Zephrys, an already extremely powerful neutral card, should be able to instantly win the game if one single risky Warlock card was played, the only card in the entire game affected this way. This is the hill they want to die on.
The best argument ever: "Jaraxxus is a bad card anyway"...
You just should play around it.
I'm not dying on any hills for the sake of Zephrys, but I will certainly defend the status quo when people wrongly treat it as a mistake that needs to be corrected.
In the original release of the game, this interaction was known. It was allowed to go live. It has never been changed. This means it is intentional, not a mistake. Yes, it often catches newer players by surprise, but that's part of the fun for people who are aware of it.
Because of this interaction, Jaraxxus was always going to get worse over time, especially in Wild. As more ways of obtaining other-class cards enter the game, jaraxxus becomes more and more of a risky play. Anyone who understands the evolution of collectable card games would have been able to see this coming.
So now we've reached the point where Sacrificial Pact is easily obtainable by all classes, consigning Jaraxxus to Dumpster status temporarily in Classic and permanently in Wild. When Zephrys rotates out, Jaraxxus will be more playable again in Standard.
All of this is OK. It's just one of the many ways CCGs change over time. Individual cards get better or worse, and the players adapt.
If they one day decide to buff Jaraxxus by removing the interaction, that will be fine, too, but I would not expect it unless there's some major Demon-themed event they are trying to promote. Outside of that, the interaction is not really going to affect the meta either way, so it's simply not worth changing. That's why the "Jaraxxus is bad anyway" argument is actually relevant.
"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
Imagine if they "updated" Jaraxxus to a hero card, that would be something (balance included). It would probably bring control warlock back from the twisting nether.
Siras Terra, the Geomancer
when you handbuff jaraxxus, you do not get increased attack and health. Only idiots think the interaction makes sense.
Fun > Meta
It's not even about making sense, though. It's just a fun interaction that once provided an Achilles' heel in an archetype that could feel a bit oppressive. It's been a long time since those days, of course, but making this change would not create any real benefit to any significant number of players. It simply doesn't make sense to do it.
"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
Lmao people are trying so hard to defend Zephyrs. Jaraxxus already has a 15 hp limit and people still think that sac pact is “fun” because it’s a counter to an “oppressive” card. Even though 1. The power creep of cards have enabled a lot of burst 2. The flavor argument is faulty because why doesn’t he recieve buffs? (Ex:Mal’Ganis) 3. Ironic people say it gives you counter play when it’s just an insta-win. I’m fine with pyroblast, because atleast it spent the enemy’s entire turn and you have 5 hp. With zephyrs you just die on the spot. I bet most Of you defending zephyrs got your ass whopped by jaraxxus because you were too greedy/Control. (Control Warriors) and managed your resources horrendously, so now you get a “get out of jail free card” per se.
It makes sense to do it because it improves the QoL of the card and therefore the game. It’s actually highly detrimental to the player experience that a card, particularly such an interesting one, effectively cannot be played because about half the decks in Standard have access to a spell that wins the game on the spot if you play it. As stated previously, counters are fine, even hard counters, but “destroy the enemy hero” is when the counter has become too hard. If your turn 4 giant gets shot up by a Big Game Hunter it’s kind of annoying but at least you are still alive and can continue playing.
You mention that “Jaraxxus is bad anyway” is a valid argument but I challenge that. For one, Jaraxxus being good or bad is dependent on the shifting meta. Granted right now he can’t be top tier because Warlock is severely lacking in late game, but a single new set release or card buff could flip that on its head. The problem presented by Zephrys > Pact is that Jaraxxus CANNOT be good until Zephrys rotates out in 2021. There should be room for players to slot Jaraxxus into their decks in control heavy metas (in which he is good) but there will not be, because Zephrys will still be everywhere in the meta and even played in the very control decks Jaraxxus is there to counter. Not only that but considering Jaraxxus is significantly weaker than he was in vanilla because other cards now exist, he doesn’t need this weakness any more (which was only available to other Warlocks anyway).
Don’t get me wrong, I believe there should be a punish for every card, but instant defeat is too harsh. Remove the interaction for a better game. 👍
The interaction between Sacrificial Pact and Jaraxxus was intentional in the original release but not as a weakness that was destined or even meant to get worse over time. Outside of your prophetic wisdom, generating cards out of thin air was not part of normal card game evolution, since Hearthsthone was one of the first that even made such things possible as a purely digital card game. The concept of classes was used specifically to limit what each player could and couldn't do. And it wasn't until BRM, a year after the initial release and about 2 years after the beta phase, that Nefarian made it possible for the first time to obtain entirely random spells from another class during a match, and now, 5 years after the release, we have a card that discovers "the perfect card" beyond class limitations.
The dozens of changes to the core set indicate that many parts of the original version of Hearthstone were more or less fine at launch but needed to change as the game moved on. I don't see why the Sacrificial Pact interaction shouldn't be one of those cases, when the card turned from "hardly worth a slot in your Warlock deck" to "can get reliably discovered by any class at a most opportune moment and in some rare cases wins you the game instantly".
Indeed, the game keeps changing, and cards can get worse. This is where we are right now, one of the two cards is getting worse: It's either Lord J remaining borderline unplayable for the time being because of Zephrys, or SacPact losing its instant win potential. And I think the little viability of a class defining late game card is worth preserving over a fringe case in which a highly situational spell can end the game out of nowhere.
The interaction isn't a "mistake", it's not a glitch or anything like that, but it is unintuitive and feels off, and now it creates a situation where it makes the game less fun by heavily discouraging Warlock players from using one of their most iconic legendaries, and might impact the classes' potential moving forward. There is no good reason to keep it that way.
And the "it's a bad card anyway" argument is plain stupid. Even worse than the very similar "Nobody cares about Wild" argument that I've heard too many times during the Barnes discussions.
Meta-relevance (or Standard, for that matter) isn't and shouldn't ever be the only thing to consider when discussing card changes, because "the meta" or "Standard" isn't the entire game. It might not affect the hardcore competitive Standard players, but they are just a fraction of all players. If you only care about the meta, then it's irrelevant to YOU, and to YOU, it's not worth changing. You might as well say "it doesn't concern me, so it doesn't matter", which is a ludicrous argument in any public debate.
Whatever you deem a "significant number of affected players" for it to matter is entirely arbitrary, both the number (what would be significant?) and the very concept of a large enough number of affected players as a prerequisite for intervention. Besides, there is no way of telling how many players are affected and would benefit from it anyway. Team5 probably can find out how many players used Jaraxxus before and after the release of Uldum, but they won't be able to tell how many players don't play Jaraxxus anymore now and in future releases because of Zephrys.
Maybe you remember Tess Greymane, a card that was certainly not part of any serious meta deck, and one day it was changed in a similar fashion to Yogg-Saron for "consistency". Some people were upset about it, because they actually liked and used the card, and saw it getting worse. And the developers changed the card back. They deemed the fun of a few players more important than their own understanding of consistency. Regardless of how many people were affected by it in the end, this was the best solution for everyone.
That's how such things should get handled.
Alternate option: remove Sacrificial Pact from the Zephrys pool of cards. Maybe always, but certainly when Jaraxxus is on board.
I mean, I think the SacPact/Jaraxxus interaction is kinda funny, but it should be relegated to the realm of silly and rare, rather than consistently available.
This post pretty much got it spot on, only bit I disagree with is "It might not affect the hardcore competitive Standard players, but they are just a fraction of all players. If you only care about the meta, then it's irrelevant to YOU, and to YOU, it's not worth changing." Actually I think the competitive HS player is always considering Jaraxxus' viability when deck building. I very much care for competitive play and it is for this reason that I want to see Jaraxxus be competitively viable. It opens up options for Warlocks to deal with grindy control strategies.
I prefer removing the Jaraxxus interaction because efficiently dealing with a large demon on the board is actually a fair use of Sac Pact as "the perfect card" and aside from this stupid ass interaction with Jaraxxus, it is exactly the kind of card that should exist in the Zephrys pool.
It reminds me when The mage DK come out i wanted to make a majordomo executus deck were i played jaina 1st get lifesteal on my elementals then get him killed and get a heal 8 every turn.
1 guess how that turned out.
It didn't work was a bit upsetting since it took a while to get play it and not die on the spot. I thought it might work since it from a card and it should keep/get a elemental tag since its rag a card that a elemental.