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.
lol man you didn't evn figured out why it didn't worked. if you trasform in rag your health cap is 8. any heal wouldn't have worked on you, same with 15 hp jaraxxus- before trying meme deck you should have a bit of knowledge of the game you know
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.
You are literally arguing against yourself here. You are arbitrarily choosing to make Jaraxxus better and Sacrificial Pact worse for no reason other than that you like one more than the other.
Jaraxxus hasn't been a "class-defining" card in years. It's certainly not more class-defining than Sacrificial Pact, which combines several elements of the class identity into one card. While undeniably flavorful, "destroy your hero and replace it with a Demon" is just a little too specific to consider it a core aspect of Warlock identity.
Also, Sacrificial Pact doesn't end games out of nowhere. It ends them after a very specific setup on the part of the Jaraxxus player. Intuitive has nothing to do with it, because you have actual knowledge of the interaction -- you don't need to guess. So that's not a great argument. Intuitive only matters the first time, and there are plenty of interactions in the game that seem confusing the first time you see them.
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
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 didn't mean to say that Jaraxxus is generally a card that competitive players would not consider and so this whole debate would be uninteresting to all of them.
This bit was still part of my response towards the "bad card" argument in this debate: If you say that Jaraxxus is a "bad card" and not part of the meta and thus shouldn't get changed/ doesn't deserve the attention, you say that only (currently) competitively relevant cards deserve consideration of any kind, and implying that only competitively viable cards matter to you, then it's only your own (narrow) perspective in which changing the interaction is pointless.
I'm sure that even some competitive players might be interested in seeing the interaction removed, especially if we get to the point (and we might) that Control Warlock gets enough support to become a strong deck again, but then can't make use of Jaraxxus because of Highlander decks like Hunter in the format.
Sorry if I caused any confusion.
Sidenote: I agree with you that I'd rather see the interaction changed than having Sacrificial Pact removed from Zephrys' pool, because having it as an extremely efficient removal against Demons is still fine. It just shouldn't be an instant win against that one demon once it became a hero.
You are literally arguing against yourself here. You are arbitrarily choosing to make Jaraxxus better and Sacrificial Pact worse for no reason other than that you like one more than the other.
Oh please, of course Jaraxxus is better than Sacrificial Pact. He's a classic class legendary who has been a staple in many decks, he's the eredar lord of the burning legion, and he gave us one of the most viewed meme videos on HS history.
Go ahead and argue that sac pact should kill Jaraxxus, but don't argue that there isn't a clear, wide gulf between the two cards in terms of quality, flavor, and history. If we have to choose between these two cards, the decision is beyond clear.
You are literally arguing against yourself here. You are arbitrarily choosing to make Jaraxxus better and Sacrificial Pact worse for no reason other than that you like one more than the other.
Oh please, of course Jaraxxus is better than Sacrificial Pact. He's a classic class legendary who has been a staple in many decks, he's the eredar lord of the burning legion, and he gave us one of the most viewed meme videos on HS history.
Go ahead and argue that sac pact should kill Jaraxxus, but don't argue that there isn't a clear, wide gulf between the two cards in terms of quality, flavor, and history. If we have to choose between these two cards, the decision is beyond clear.
Except we don't have to shoose, because no one actually cares about either one at the moment. Your argument is equivalent to "If we have to choose between dog poop and pigeon poop, dog poop is clearly better because more people have dogs as pets."
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
To give you an idea of how game warping this effect is, lets slot it into the pre-patch SoU Meta and say for argument's sake that Sac Pact could be cast on Dr. Boom - Mad Genius to instantly destroy him. Being a classic card, Zephrys would offer this with impunity every time he was played against Dr. Boom - Mad Genius. Irrespective of "flavour" etc, would this interaction be acceptable?
Its all well and good to say it doesn't matter because Jaraxxus doesn't see play anyway (still a terrible argument), but what if he did? And what if he would with the next set release if this interaction didn't exist? The interaction is too restrictive on how players can build their decks and it serves absolutely no purpose in terms of promoting strategic game play.
You are literally arguing against yourself here. You are arbitrarily choosing to make Jaraxxus better and Sacrificial Pact worse for no reason other than that you like one more than the other.
Also, Sacrificial Pact doesn't end games out of nowhere. It ends them after a very specific setup on the part of the Jaraxxus player. Intuitive has nothing to do with it, because you have actual knowledge of the interaction -- you don't need to guess. So that's not a great argument. Intuitive only matters the first time, and there are plenty of interactions in the game that seem confusing the first time you see them.
In the passage I'm referring to, you wanted to make a point that cards become worse over time. And I say that yes, cards do become worse over time. And in this case, it'll inevitably be either one or the other: Either Jaraxxus gets worse, because Zephrys can always destroy it, or Sacrificial Pact gets worse, because it can no longer destroy Jaraxxus as a hero. In other words, you point out why it's ok for Jaraxxus to get worse, without realizing that the same reason can be used against Sacrificial Pact.
And at this point, where it's either one or the other, we can now (if you wish) look for arguments which is better fit to become worse. Excuse me for not explaining my opinion in detail in advance before we even got to that point. Some kid recently accused me of writing way too much, and I already try (even though it doesn't look like it) to keep my postings as short as possible.
And yes, I do think it's better to change Sacrificial Pact, because I think Jaraxxus is an integral part of Warlock's lategame, a strategically and mechanically very interesting card, and important as a class- and deck-defining tool. Jaraxxus is a card that gives you an extremely strong hero power and weapon to end games quickly at a very high cost. It's a difficult decision for the player to find the right moment when to play Jaraxxus; whether you use it for closing the game out fast or keep it as a "heal" option, how much removal or burst potential you want to bait out first etc., and I think it's sad if that option is no longer available because Zephrys pretty much prevents Jaraxxus from being played. As soon as a Warlock deck with Jaraxxus appears in the meta, every highlander player knows that Zephrys will eventually win them the game nearly 100% and makes for a very one-sided matchup. I don't think that's healthy.
Sacrificial Pact is a very good card for defining Warlock as a class, yes. I don't mean to say the card is worthless or worth less, but the "destroy a hero" bit is, in my opinion, not a major feature of the card and not worth preserving. Maybe if we had a few more destroyable demon-heroes in the past or other such interactions, maybe if Warlock was more established as a disruptive, counter-heavy class where this aspect of SacPact really shines, like turning the opponent into Jaraxxus under some weird circumstance. But as it is right now, it makes more sense to me to change Sacrificial Pact.
If you think Sacrificial Pact is more class-defining because it combines so many different elements of the class, and the Jaraxxus-killing needs to be a part of it, that's cool too. I don't agree with you, but if we can get to that point in the debate now and leave the stupid "bad card" argument behind us, I consider that progress.
As for the rest: We are talking about the only spell in the entire game, that under specific circumstances can immediately destroy a hero, and we talk about it as a discover option from Zephrys. We are only discussing the possibility that one player plays Jaraxxus, and the other player plays Zephrys, and instantly wins regardless of his deck and class and the course of the game. That is pretty much out of nowhere. Certainly more than other cases that were branded as such, like Malygos combos.
And the interaction isn't intutitive as in "not obvious" and "unlike any other". There is no other spell that can directly destroy a hero, there is no other case in which a hero is considered a demon, murloc or whatever, and no other case in which a hero can be targeted by a normally minion-restricted effect. I'm not saying it's a great argument, but the interaction is strange, to say the least. Hearthstone is a game that does care about being easy to grasp, so it's an argument nonetheless why a change might be warranted. Not a critical reason to change it, not as critical as Zephrys' ability to generate it, but one I wouldn't leave out when discussing whether it should get changed.
For those who defend that Sacrificial Pact should kill Jaraxxus, then should Assesinate of the Rogue kill any human hero? For me that interaction is completely negative for the game
For those who defend that Sacrificial Pact should kill Jaraxxus, then should Assesinate of the Rogue kill any human hero? For me that interaction is completely negative for the game
The text of Assassinate says it targets a minion, so no.
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
If you think Sacrificial Pact is more class-defining because it combines so many different elements of the class, and the Jaraxxus-killing needs to be a part of it, that's cool too. I don't agree with you, but if we can get to that point in the debate now and leave the stupid "bad card" argument behind us, I consider that progress.
Yes, it's pretty obvious this is a matter of opinion, which is why it irritated me that people were saying the current interaction is clearly, absolutely, flat-out wrong and simply had to go. I'm quite happy to agree to disagree, but I do maintain that any change is unlikely. Blizzard has better things to do than "fix" an interaction that has such an infinitesimal impact on the game at this time.
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
If you think Sacrificial Pact is more class-defining because it combines so many different elements of the class, and the Jaraxxus-killing needs to be a part of it, that's cool too. I don't agree with you, but if we can get to that point in the debate now and leave the stupid "bad card" argument behind us, I consider that progress.
Yes, it's pretty obvious this is a matter of opinion, which is why it irritated me that people were saying the current interaction is clearly, absolutely, flat-out wrong and simply had to go. I'm quite happy to agree to disagree, but I do maintain that any change is unlikely. Blizzard has better things to do than "fix" an interaction that has such an infinitesimal impact on the game at this time.
@FortyDust and anyone else arguing against this change.
Let me get this straight. From reading around various discussions, including this one, here is what I've come to understand about your position: you think that a player should be able to spend 2 mana and discover a card 100% of the time that instantly wins the game, regardless of the rest of the game state. You think that this is an okay interaction because "hey you shouldn't be playing that card anyways cuz is bad, hurr durrrrr".
This is a really cut and dry situation. A bunch of decks run Zephrys. Currently, as a warlock, if you are fighting against one of these decks, you absolutely CAN NOT play Lord Jaraxxus unless that Zephrys has come out, which will often be very late in the game, which is also when you will want to be playing Jaraxxus. Hell, even some non-highlanders decks run Zephrys because he's good enough to hold on to until your deck no longer has duplicates, so you can't even really be sure. The card went from a cool, lore rich card with lots of history and flavor to an actually dead card.
Think about it from my perspective. Believe it or not, I am one of those people that used to run Jaraxxus because the card felt cool. No other reason. It would lose me plenty of games by being useless in my hand, or by me playing it and getting combo'd for 15 HP, but I didn't care. I love the effects, the animations, the new voice lines, the new hero power, the cool weapon. The most satisfying way to finish out a game for me would be by playing Lord Jaraxxus, Eredar Lord of the Burning Legion, and crushing the enemy with my mighty 3/8 weapon "Blood Fury" and my army of infernals.
With that being said.. why do you want to take this away from me so badly? You said it yourself, it's not like it was a threatening card. Before Zephrys, the sac pact WAS a fun little counterplay that would rarely come up. Now, it is at people's fingertips in way too many games. I just wanna play Jaraxxus, man.
For those who defend that Sacrificial Pact should kill Jaraxxus, then should Assesinate of the Rogue kill any human hero? For me that interaction is completely negative for the game
The text of Assassinate says it targets a minion, so no.
Agreed. Human is also not the name of a Tribe in Hearthstone.
That said, though : Blizzard, please can you make it so that Hungry Crab has the same effect as Sac-Pac on that irritating Murloc hero? Asking for a friend...
There is literally zero reason Sac Pact should be allowed to instantly destroy a player that played LJ. The hero themselves should no longer be counted as a demon. Or should we go ahead and make that murloc shaman hero count as a murloc? So that hungry crab can instantly destroy them.
no way they should remove the interaction because of this, theres no other card that we can argue should be destroyed because this is the only minon that replaces your hero, so its not a hero card like some people seem to insist after all you can get lord J on board. I understand the frustation but for me removing it is only making Jaraxxus a hero card that says minion for some reason, Zephyr will eventually go and Jaraxxus will stay so you can complain about him not being playable for some other reason
There is literally zero reason Sac Pact should be allowed to instantly destroy a player that played LJ. The hero themselves should no longer be counted as a demon. Or should we go ahead and make that murloc shaman hero count as a murloc? So that hungry crab can instantly destroy them.
It's almost like you didn't even read literally the previous comment to this one... :-P
Why does Zephyrs even offer Sac Pact? Blizzard did this on purpose. They think this interaction is amusing. I wonder if they think Charge and Charged Devilsaur are amusing to keep as is too? Makes about as much sense.
no way they should remove the interaction because of this, theres no other card that we can argue should be destroyed because this is the only minon that replaces your hero, so its not a hero card like some people seem to insist after all you can get lord J on board. I understand the frustation but for me removing it is only making Jaraxxus a hero card that says minion for some reason, Zephyr will eventually go and Jaraxxus will stay so you can complain about him not being playable for some other reason
Zephrys will eventually go, but the technology will remain, so I wouldn't be surprise to see the effect of Zephrys back, maybe in some high cost card. Moreover, I recall you that Sac Pact cost 0 mana, so destroying a hero at 0 mana is too much. Considering that it can already allow you to destroy an enemy demon is already strong enough for a 0 cost card.
lol man you didn't evn figured out why it didn't worked. if you trasform in rag your health cap is 8. any heal wouldn't have worked on you, same with 15 hp jaraxxus- before trying meme deck you should have a bit of knowledge of the game you know
I wonder how long that guy has played hearthstone and he didn’t understand about the health.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
lol man you didn't evn figured out why it didn't worked.
if you trasform in rag your health cap is 8. any heal wouldn't have worked on you, same with 15 hp jaraxxus- before trying meme deck you should have a bit of knowledge of the game you know
You are literally arguing against yourself here. You are arbitrarily choosing to make Jaraxxus better and Sacrificial Pact worse for no reason other than that you like one more than the other.
Jaraxxus hasn't been a "class-defining" card in years. It's certainly not more class-defining than Sacrificial Pact, which combines several elements of the class identity into one card. While undeniably flavorful, "destroy your hero and replace it with a Demon" is just a little too specific to consider it a core aspect of Warlock identity.
Also, Sacrificial Pact doesn't end games out of nowhere. It ends them after a very specific setup on the part of the Jaraxxus player. Intuitive has nothing to do with it, because you have actual knowledge of the interaction -- you don't need to guess. So that's not a great argument. Intuitive only matters the first time, and there are plenty of interactions in the game that seem confusing the first time you see them.
"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
I didn't mean to say that Jaraxxus is generally a card that competitive players would not consider and so this whole debate would be uninteresting to all of them.
This bit was still part of my response towards the "bad card" argument in this debate: If you say that Jaraxxus is a "bad card" and not part of the meta and thus shouldn't get changed/ doesn't deserve the attention, you say that only (currently) competitively relevant cards deserve consideration of any kind, and implying that only competitively viable cards matter to you, then it's only your own (narrow) perspective in which changing the interaction is pointless.
I'm sure that even some competitive players might be interested in seeing the interaction removed, especially if we get to the point (and we might) that Control Warlock gets enough support to become a strong deck again, but then can't make use of Jaraxxus because of Highlander decks like Hunter in the format.
Sorry if I caused any confusion.
Sidenote: I agree with you that I'd rather see the interaction changed than having Sacrificial Pact removed from Zephrys' pool, because having it as an extremely efficient removal against Demons is still fine. It just shouldn't be an instant win against that one demon once it became a hero.
Oh please, of course Jaraxxus is better than Sacrificial Pact. He's a classic class legendary who has been a staple in many decks, he's the eredar lord of the burning legion, and he gave us one of the most viewed meme videos on HS history.
Go ahead and argue that sac pact should kill Jaraxxus, but don't argue that there isn't a clear, wide gulf between the two cards in terms of quality, flavor, and history. If we have to choose between these two cards, the decision is beyond clear.
Except we don't have to shoose, because no one actually cares about either one at the moment. Your argument is equivalent to "If we have to choose between dog poop and pigeon poop, dog poop is clearly better because more people have dogs as pets."
"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
To give you an idea of how game warping this effect is, lets slot it into the pre-patch SoU Meta and say for argument's sake that Sac Pact could be cast on Dr. Boom - Mad Genius to instantly destroy him. Being a classic card, Zephrys would offer this with impunity every time he was played against Dr. Boom - Mad Genius. Irrespective of "flavour" etc, would this interaction be acceptable?
Its all well and good to say it doesn't matter because Jaraxxus doesn't see play anyway (still a terrible argument), but what if he did? And what if he would with the next set release if this interaction didn't exist? The interaction is too restrictive on how players can build their decks and it serves absolutely no purpose in terms of promoting strategic game play.
First wrote this as an edit, but whatever, I make it a new post:
In the passage I'm referring to, you wanted to make a point that cards become worse over time. And I say that yes, cards do become worse over time. And in this case, it'll inevitably be either one or the other: Either Jaraxxus gets worse, because Zephrys can always destroy it, or Sacrificial Pact gets worse, because it can no longer destroy Jaraxxus as a hero. In other words, you point out why it's ok for Jaraxxus to get worse, without realizing that the same reason can be used against Sacrificial Pact.
And at this point, where it's either one or the other, we can now (if you wish) look for arguments which is better fit to become worse. Excuse me for not explaining my opinion in detail in advance before we even got to that point. Some kid recently accused me of writing way too much, and I already try (even though it doesn't look like it) to keep my postings as short as possible.
And yes, I do think it's better to change Sacrificial Pact, because I think Jaraxxus is an integral part of Warlock's lategame, a strategically and mechanically very interesting card, and important as a class- and deck-defining tool. Jaraxxus is a card that gives you an extremely strong hero power and weapon to end games quickly at a very high cost. It's a difficult decision for the player to find the right moment when to play Jaraxxus; whether you use it for closing the game out fast or keep it as a "heal" option, how much removal or burst potential you want to bait out first etc., and I think it's sad if that option is no longer available because Zephrys pretty much prevents Jaraxxus from being played. As soon as a Warlock deck with Jaraxxus appears in the meta, every highlander player knows that Zephrys will eventually win them the game nearly 100% and makes for a very one-sided matchup. I don't think that's healthy.
Sacrificial Pact is a very good card for defining Warlock as a class, yes. I don't mean to say the card is worthless or worth less, but the "destroy a hero" bit is, in my opinion, not a major feature of the card and not worth preserving. Maybe if we had a few more destroyable demon-heroes in the past or other such interactions, maybe if Warlock was more established as a disruptive, counter-heavy class where this aspect of SacPact really shines, like turning the opponent into Jaraxxus under some weird circumstance. But as it is right now, it makes more sense to me to change Sacrificial Pact.
If you think Sacrificial Pact is more class-defining because it combines so many different elements of the class, and the Jaraxxus-killing needs to be a part of it, that's cool too. I don't agree with you, but if we can get to that point in the debate now and leave the stupid "bad card" argument behind us, I consider that progress.
As for the rest: We are talking about the only spell in the entire game, that under specific circumstances can immediately destroy a hero, and we talk about it as a discover option from Zephrys. We are only discussing the possibility that one player plays Jaraxxus, and the other player plays Zephrys, and instantly wins regardless of his deck and class and the course of the game. That is pretty much out of nowhere. Certainly more than other cases that were branded as such, like Malygos combos.
And the interaction isn't intutitive as in "not obvious" and "unlike any other". There is no other spell that can directly destroy a hero, there is no other case in which a hero is considered a demon, murloc or whatever, and no other case in which a hero can be targeted by a normally minion-restricted effect. I'm not saying it's a great argument, but the interaction is strange, to say the least. Hearthstone is a game that does care about being easy to grasp, so it's an argument nonetheless why a change might be warranted. Not a critical reason to change it, not as critical as Zephrys' ability to generate it, but one I wouldn't leave out when discussing whether it should get changed.
For those who defend that Sacrificial Pact should kill Jaraxxus, then should Assesinate of the Rogue kill any human hero? For me that interaction is completely negative for the game
The text of Assassinate says it targets a minion, so no.
"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
Yes, it's pretty obvious this is a matter of opinion, which is why it irritated me that people were saying the current interaction is clearly, absolutely, flat-out wrong and simply had to go. I'm quite happy to agree to disagree, but I do maintain that any change is unlikely. Blizzard has better things to do than "fix" an interaction that has such an infinitesimal impact on the game at this time.
"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
@FortyDust and anyone else arguing against this change.
Let me get this straight. From reading around various discussions, including this one, here is what I've come to understand about your position: you think that a player should be able to spend 2 mana and discover a card 100% of the time that instantly wins the game, regardless of the rest of the game state. You think that this is an okay interaction because "hey you shouldn't be playing that card anyways cuz is bad, hurr durrrrr".
This is a really cut and dry situation. A bunch of decks run Zephrys. Currently, as a warlock, if you are fighting against one of these decks, you absolutely CAN NOT play Lord Jaraxxus unless that Zephrys has come out, which will often be very late in the game, which is also when you will want to be playing Jaraxxus. Hell, even some non-highlanders decks run Zephrys because he's good enough to hold on to until your deck no longer has duplicates, so you can't even really be sure. The card went from a cool, lore rich card with lots of history and flavor to an actually dead card.
Think about it from my perspective. Believe it or not, I am one of those people that used to run Jaraxxus because the card felt cool. No other reason. It would lose me plenty of games by being useless in my hand, or by me playing it and getting combo'd for 15 HP, but I didn't care. I love the effects, the animations, the new voice lines, the new hero power, the cool weapon. The most satisfying way to finish out a game for me would be by playing Lord Jaraxxus, Eredar Lord of the Burning Legion, and crushing the enemy with my mighty 3/8 weapon "Blood Fury" and my army of infernals.
With that being said.. why do you want to take this away from me so badly? You said it yourself, it's not like it was a threatening card. Before Zephrys, the sac pact WAS a fun little counterplay that would rarely come up. Now, it is at people's fingertips in way too many games. I just wanna play Jaraxxus, man.
Blizzard, please. #MakeJaraxxusGreatAgain
#Make Jaraxxus Playable Again would also be nice for me :p
Agreed. Human is also not the name of a Tribe in Hearthstone.
That said, though : Blizzard, please can you make it so that Hungry Crab has the same effect as Sac-Pac on that irritating Murloc hero?
Asking for a friend...
There is literally zero reason Sac Pact should be allowed to instantly destroy a player that played LJ. The hero themselves should no longer be counted as a demon. Or should we go ahead and make that murloc shaman hero count as a murloc? So that hungry crab can instantly destroy them.
No no no no no, it is "Battlecry IF YOU HAVE NO DUPLICATES: win"
no way they should remove the interaction because of this, theres no other card that we can argue should be destroyed because this is the only minon that replaces your hero, so its not a hero card like some people seem to insist after all you can get lord J on board. I understand the frustation but for me removing it is only making Jaraxxus a hero card that says minion for some reason, Zephyr will eventually go and Jaraxxus will stay so you can complain about him not being playable for some other reason
It's almost like you didn't even read literally the previous comment to this one... :-P
Why does Zephyrs even offer Sac Pact? Blizzard did this on purpose. They think this interaction is amusing. I wonder if they think Charge and Charged Devilsaur are amusing to keep as is too? Makes about as much sense.
Zephrys will eventually go, but the technology will remain, so I wouldn't be surprise to see the effect of Zephrys back, maybe in some high cost card. Moreover, I recall you that Sac Pact cost 0 mana, so destroying a hero at 0 mana is too much. Considering that it can already allow you to destroy an enemy demon is already strong enough for a 0 cost card.
I wonder how long that guy has played hearthstone and he didn’t understand about the health.