And btw tick is no good. If you play a deck that doesn’t punish the opponent for playing a 6 mana card with no instant impact (and no, 6 mana 8/8 has no impact. It’s just stats and stats on expensive cards are almost irrelevant), then maybe you a) shouldn’t play such a greedy deck (which isn’t fun to play against) or b) accept, that there are bad matchups. And whoever concedes just because he saw tick doesn’t understand the game. It’s irrelevant unless you are going to less than 5 cards consistently or you are playing combo with tutor effects. The one big exception is big priest in wild since it is nearly impossible to outvalue them card by card, so tick has an impact here. the Silas deck is a control deck with finisher.
if anything jarraxus might be a problem in standard, but just kill the lock in the first 10 - 12 turns (which is not Aggro, just modern hs: kill the opponent fast or lose)
people saying control is unplayable because of tick are just whining. If you wanna see something that really makes control “unplayable” (I still do) then I invite you to some games against raza or big priest.
And I know what I’m talking about, getting legend every month with homebrew decks.
Note: cards that are more than 4 maybe 5 mana and come down around turn 8-10 ( normal tick turns) need to win the game often. If they don’t, they’re just garbage, because they are way to slow.
In standard, you often lose to the second tick from ysharaj, but this is a 10 mana play like bloodreaver or nzoth. 10 mana cards have to be game ending or they don’t see play.
furthermore, cthun is an argument for tick not against it. Most people don’t enjoy games lasting 25 turns just to lose to this boring card
Well written and I agree, Shadow Hunter Vol'jin has a lot of potential for trying to mess up Tick Lock and others.
However, I just hit 28-13 with Silas Warrior against Tick Lock. It's not that hopeless a match. It's my hope that by the end of this meta, I will finally have enough individual stats that it actually IS a relevant sample size, at which point we can finally draw some conclusions.
How does your deck fair against, well everything else. It’s gotta be hard to maintain that armor level against aggro and mid range decks. Do you have a secondary win condition?
messed up the quote box a bit
Anyway, the mage matchup basically goes the way every other opponent vs mage goes right now. If they manage to get Lunacy in the first few turns, it's a complete crap shoot, though probably not going to go my way. If the mage deck is forced to play its own game, I basically never lose, as whatever comes out of Font of Power is going to die easily, and the burn isn't enough to stand up to the armor gain.
Paladin is a hell of a fight. Surprisingly enough, the paladin match DOES often come down to the combo turn. Usually a win involves fending off as much of the early game as possible, getting to a low life total, swinging the board and the armor total with a Barov plus Rancor turn, and then deploying either kargath prime or saurfang plus rushers to hold onto the tempo game after the board clear. A loss looks like . . . um, any part of that going wrong.
Rogue is generally a decent matchup. For one thing, I've learned to hard mulligan for ooze and things that can kill watch posts. If it's the poison rogue (surprisingly common at high legend), they generally play as if the opponent won't be playing any weapon destruction. The rest just depends on how much damage the watch posts manage to do.
Haven't had much issue with the occasional hunter or death rattle stuff. I suspect the god draw of the Deathrattle Demon Hunter would take me out, but I just haven't seen much of them.
Ironically, I occasionally see a different type of mage which uses Wildfire and Mordesh. That mage takes me down with ease just because it holds the armor total down and demands answers to more creatures than spell mage ever has. It's much better set up to handle my deck, but as most things in this game, one has to accept a bad matchup or two with most decks they pick. I suspect this type of mage will see more play after whatever nerfs happen, so the Silas Warrior may be doomed at that point, but que sera.
It's not a bad deck to be playing in this meta, honestly. I'm not making a lot of headway beyond top 500 legend due to the prevalence of paladin, but we shall see how it goes after the nerfs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
This is no argument. Played winrate is influenced by people playing cards when they already won the game. Example: I could play whisp in my deck and show you proof for it having a 100% played winrate just by always dropping it with lethal on board
Your lack of understanding isn’t a counter argument. Tick is never played before turn 8, and likely not often played before turn 10, depending on the matchup, so a 70%+ win rate when played is very telling of the deck’s overall performance in control matchups. If you can’t make that leap in logic I don’t know what to tell you. If you think a 6 mana 8/8 that burns 5 cards from your opponent’s deck is no good then I think that says all we need to know about your grasp of the game. Jaraxxus and tick are both a problem if other control decks are to have a chance in this meta. That’s not debatable.
Jarraxus beats every control deck and as long as it remains in core, warlock will always win control vs control. It's not to do with tickatus. If it was just tickatus, even priest could beat warlock a decent amount of the time. Maybe not tonnes, but at least more than 5% of the time. The reason is that they have the removal and can slam down big dragons and go face. Warlock actually doesn't put up many threats. What it does do is summon a 6/6 demon every turn though and it wins in fatigue due to tickatus as well.
Warrior is just always going to be weak vs jarraxus. The only deck that may have been able to keep up which is sort of control (but arguably not really) was quest warrior, but that went to wild. Summoning two 4/4s a turn is also pretty good. Warlock has infinite value though and the other classes do not.
Seems like it's been debated for an entire meta and counting. Folks assured us that control was doomed in the last meta, back when mercenary allowed triple Rattlegore to eat warlock for lunch. They were wrong, but they were damn sure it was not debatable.
Now, as I have said repeatedly, I am concerned about Jaraxxus's rework. That does seem to be a serious issue. But there isn't any reason to believe Tickatus is any more impactful now than it was a month ago. Furthermore, if Jaraxxus actually can do what Frost Lich Jaina and Deathstalker Rexxar did before him, then sooner or later the meta will refine the deck to the point where Tickatus isn't even included. Ultimately, whether Tickatus stays in the deck will depend on the prevalence of combo options, but as for a control vs control meta, Jaraxxus is all you need.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Tickatus mostly just means that despite drawing lots of cards, Control Warlock won't lose in Fatigue, and can keep up with other control decks.
The real strength is Lord Jaraxxus. A 2-mana 6/6 each turn from the hero power is like a Rattlegore that never shrinks. Starts off a bit smaller, but being able to chain Inferno!, with a few other cards or just the 3/8 weapon, a Warlock can keep up with Warrior's sticky minion, and eventually surpass it.
Twist + Strongman means you can clear the board while developing, and Y'sharrj gives an extra bump of reload.
Seems like it's been debated for an entire meta and counting. Folks assured us that control was doomed in the last meta, back when mercenary allowed triple Rattlegore to eat warlock for lunch. They were wrong, but they were damn sure it was not debatable.
Now, as I have said repeatedly, I am concerned about Jaraxxus's rework. That does seem to be a serious issue. But there isn't any reason to believe Tickatus is any more impactful now than it was a month ago. Furthermore, if Jaraxxus actually can do what Frost Lich Jaina and Deathstalker Rexxar did before him, then sooner or later the meta will refine the deck to the point where Tickatus isn't even included. Ultimately, whether Tickatus stays in the deck will depend on the prevalence of combo options, but as for a control vs control meta, Jaraxxus is all you need.
Are you claiming Control isn’t doomed?
I mean Control barely exists and certainly not in the way it used to. Quasi combo/control and midrange/control hybrid decks have replaced the archetype.
Tickatus mostly just means that despite drawing lots of cards, Control Warlock won't lose in Fatigue, and can keep up with other control decks.
The real strength is Lord Jaraxxus. A 2-mana 6/6 each turn from the hero power is like a Rattlegore that never shrinks. Starts off a bit smaller, but being able to chain Inferno!, with a few other cards or just the 3/8 weapon, a Warlock can keep up with Warrior's sticky minion, and eventually surpass it.
Twist + Strongman means you can clear the board while developing, and Y'sharrj gives an extra bump of reload.
I am a strong believer that anti-heropower tech should exist. Wild has a clunky two-card combo for that but standard has nothing
Jarraxus beats every control deck and as long as it remains in core, warlock will always win control vs control. It's not to do with tickatus. If it was just tickatus, even priest could beat warlock a decent amount of the time. Maybe not tonnes, but at least more than 5% of the time. The reason is that they have the removal and can slam down big dragons and go face. Warlock actually doesn't put up many threats. What it does do is summon a 6/6 demon every turn though and it wins in fatigue due to tickatus as well.
Warrior is just always going to be weak vs jarraxus. The only deck that may have been able to keep up which is sort of control (but arguably not really) was quest warrior, but that went to wild. Summoning two 4/4s a turn is also pretty good. Warlock has infinite value though and the other classes do not.
That. Tickatus is not the reason Warlock is strong vs other control decks, but the infinite cheap value Jarraxus can provide in the late game. Burning 5 cards (or even 10) from an opponent's deck is not a win condition. Slamming infinite stats almost for free coupled with a giant weapon is.
Seems like it's been debated for an entire meta and counting. Folks assured us that control was doomed in the last meta, back when mercenary allowed triple Rattlegore to eat warlock for lunch. They were wrong, but they were damn sure it was not debatable.
Now, as I have said repeatedly, I am concerned about Jaraxxus's rework. That does seem to be a serious issue. But there isn't any reason to believe Tickatus is any more impactful now than it was a month ago. Furthermore, if Jaraxxus actually can do what Frost Lich Jaina and Deathstalker Rexxar did before him, then sooner or later the meta will refine the deck to the point where Tickatus isn't even included. Ultimately, whether Tickatus stays in the deck will depend on the prevalence of combo options, but as for a control vs control meta, Jaraxxus is all you need.
Are you claiming Control isn’t doomed?
I mean Control barely exists and certainly not in the way it used to. Quasi combo/control and midrange/control hybrid decks have replaced the archetype.
I'm not particularly concerned with subdividing the archtype to that extent. But then again, I've never really thought the distinction between control and combo was very instructive for most debates. Obviously, most combo decks have a more fragile win condition, but in the case of the Silas Warrior deck I've been talking about here, 28 cards in the deck are identical to how I would build a control warrior, and 2 card choices suddenly redefine the entire archetype. It's just not all that interesting to debate those distinctions.
However, I have been very willing to concede that playing the value game is a fool's errand against Jaraxxus. Tickatus could rotate tomorrow and that problem would still exist. That's why my point is not that there isn't a problem. My point is Tickatus ain't the problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Seems like it's been debated for an entire meta and counting. Folks assured us that control was doomed in the last meta, back when mercenary allowed triple Rattlegore to eat warlock for lunch. They were wrong, but they were damn sure it was not debatable.
Now, as I have said repeatedly, I am concerned about Jaraxxus's rework. That does seem to be a serious issue. But there isn't any reason to believe Tickatus is any more impactful now than it was a month ago. Furthermore, if Jaraxxus actually can do what Frost Lich Jaina and Deathstalker Rexxar did before him, then sooner or later the meta will refine the deck to the point where Tickatus isn't even included. Ultimately, whether Tickatus stays in the deck will depend on the prevalence of combo options, but as for a control vs control meta, Jaraxxus is all you need.
Agree. Warlock kills control decks because it has better tools, more value and every other control deck has more limited resources. Tickatus hurts? yeah sure accelerates the match but Y´shaar for 2 extra disasters and Jaraxxus are the cards that actually win the game. You cant outlast Warlock not because you lose your deck but...because you can never keep a board.
Cards like RATTLEGOOOOOOOOOREEEEEeEEEeeeEEE needs a lot of set-up, tempo, and time to hit the face. Warlock only needs to play wards, press the buttom get 6/6s and hit the face wih their 3/8 weapon and their infinite amounst of minions to win. There is not way you can bea Warlock in the control match without a really really good outplay.
Quote from Ravzar>> That. Tickatus is not the reason Warlock is strong vs other control decks, but the infinite cheap value Jarraxus can provide in the late game. Burning 5 cards (or even 10) from an opponent's deck is not a win condition. Slamming infinite stats almost for free coupled with a giant weapon is.
I mean, isn't it both? This is a game of inches where we complain when a deck wins 55% of the time. If Tickatus burns your win condition 10-15% of the time, that can shift a matchup from favorable to unfavorable.
I'm torn on Jarraxus. I think it's incredibly powerful right now because nobody else has a hero card. But at the end of the day, I'm not sure 9 mana, gain 5 armor and a equip a 3-damage weapon is going to be that oppressive. Historically it's tough to play a 9-cost card that doesn't affect the board (though 0-cost 6/6 taunts can certainly mitigate that issue). Seems like it's going to be a dead card in the overwhelming majority of their matchups.
Quote from Ravzar>> That. Tickatus is not the reason Warlock is strong vs other control decks, but the infinite cheap value Jarraxus can provide in the late game. Burning 5 cards (or even 10) from an opponent's deck is not a win condition. Slamming infinite stats almost for free coupled with a giant weapon is.
I mean, isn't it both? This is a game of inches where we complain when a deck wins 55% of the time. If Tickatus burns your win condition 10-15% of the time, that can shift a matchup from favorable to unfavorable.
I'm torn on Jarraxus. I think it's incredibly powerful right now because nobody else has a hero card. But at the end of the day, I'm not sure 9 mana, gain 5 armor and a equip a 3-damage weapon is going to be that oppressive. Historically it's tough to play a 9-cost card that doesn't affect the board (though 0-cost 6/6 taunts can certainly mitigate that issue). Seems like it's going to be a dead card in the overwhelming majority of their matchups.
Without Jaraxxus, Warlock has very limited ways to finish the game or prevent you for playing big cards after they destroy your deck. Historically Jaraxxus was ALWAYS good against control decks, it beat Warrior, Shaman and Priest controls pretty easy. The problem with Jaraxxus was that 15 HP make him pretty bad against non-control decks with actual big burst damage. Now that is not true anymore. Also is a 3/8 weapon. With the soulshard sustain this guy can obliterate any go-wide strategy on the late game pretty well and hold big aoe in hand to dealt with your last big minions. Its really problematic now. Even if you gift a hero card to other control decks you need something that is as good as Jaraxxus because not any hero power or battlecry can beat "summon a 6/6 every turn" its literally infinite big minions for the rest of the match.
You need to use your hand to keep on check a hero power? there is not way that a control deck beats that.
Seems like it's been debated for an entire meta and counting. Folks assured us that control was doomed in the last meta, back when mercenary allowed triple Rattlegore to eat warlock for lunch. They were wrong, but they were damn sure it was not debatable.
Now, as I have said repeatedly, I am concerned about Jaraxxus's rework. That does seem to be a serious issue. But there isn't any reason to believe Tickatus is any more impactful now than it was a month ago. Furthermore, if Jaraxxus actually can do what Frost Lich Jaina and Deathstalker Rexxar did before him, then sooner or later the meta will refine the deck to the point where Tickatus isn't even included. Ultimately, whether Tickatus stays in the deck will depend on the prevalence of combo options, but as for a control vs control meta, Jaraxxus is all you need.
Are you claiming Control isn’t doomed?
I mean Control barely exists and certainly not in the way it used to. Quasi combo/control and midrange/control hybrid decks have replaced the archetype.
I'm not particularly concerned with subdividing the archtype to that extent. But then again, I've never really thought the distinction between control and combo was very instructive for most debates. Obviously, most combo decks have a more fragile win condition, but in the case of the Silas Warrior deck I've been talking about here, 28 cards in the deck are identical to how I would build a control warrior, and 2 card choices suddenly redefine the entire archetype. It's just not all that interesting to debate those distinctions.
However, I have been very willing to concede that playing the value game is a fool's errand against Jaraxxus. Tickatus could rotate tomorrow and that problem would still exist. That's why my point is not that there isn't a problem. My point is Tickatus ain't the problem.
I'm not particularly concerned with subdividing the archtype to that extent. But then again, I've never really thought the distinction between control and combo was very instructive for most debates. Obviously, most combo decks have a more fragile win condition, but in the case of the Silas Warrior deck I've been talking about here, 28 cards in the deck are identical to how I would build a control warrior, and 2 card choices suddenly redefine the entire archetype. It's just not all that interesting to debate those distinctions.
I disagree with this, it isn't a semantical argument. Combo is an OTK deck where you look to draw X-number of cards that when played in the same turn will win the game. Control looks to outvalue the opponent and drop late game bombs. The distinctions are blurred because control no longer exists like it used to, and when given broken tools decks can get away with playing the best of both worlds. The quasi combo/control decks have always existed I believe but in modern HS they've become almost the only way to play 'control'. I'm not looking to debate the distinctions, just that we can recognise that there is a difference because without doing so it's hard to understand the real issues that I have with the game at the minute which I'll get too next.
However, I have been very willing to concede that playing the value game is a fool's errand against Jaraxxus. Tickatus could rotate tomorrow and that problem would still exist. That's why my point is not that there isn't a problem. My point is Tickatus ain't the problem.
I wouldn't even say Jaraxxus is THE problem (although he's one of them), the main problem imo is card draw and powercreep. Card draw is so cheap and effective, and some cards are so powerful when drawn, that Control decks are no longer winning the value game (unless they have card draw and something like Tick, Jaraxus, an OTK wincon or any other broken mechanic/card). I dislike Tickatus' design but nerfing him does absolutely nothing to slow the game down to a point where classic control style decks are playable. Tickatus is just a card which I believe highlights one of Blizzards key design philosophies (fast games), hence the visceral reaction it get's from control players.
Control decks have no room to breathe because laying off the gas for a turn means your opponent gains 8 cards, 10 mana, a 12/12 weapon and 15 life.
I didn't mean to suggest the control/combo thing was semantic. I'm just literally saying I myself don't really get into that particular argument. I understand it can be relevant at times.
As for Jaraxxus, I guess it's sort of circular. Upon further reflection, I realize that there probably won't be a time when Tickatus is voluntarily excluded from the deck, HOWEVER, the reason it will stay in the deck is not anything to do with other control decks. It is probably going to stick around in hopes of either hitting your opponent's Jaraxxus in the mirror or at least getting you ahead in the fatigue game ALSO IN THE MIRROR. If I'm correct about Jaraxxus, he will be the win condition that discourages other control decks, but you'll still get into the degenerate Lock vs Lock race to Tickatus game which frequently shows up today.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Man, I was just watching the latest Clark Hellscream video where he does a tier list of all the "most degenerate" decks in the history of Hearthstone. Holy crud, what an example of recent event bias!!!
I understand that it's meant to be an entertaining vid and also I get that comparing decks from totally different time periods in the game is difficult, but some of the comparisons made are just absolute bat shit crazy. His top of the top "SS tier" decks are somewhat reasonable, but then you see last-meta weapon rogue in the same tier as pre-nerf Quest rogue, pre-nerf Barnes rez Priest, and NAGA SEA WITCH GIANTS LOCK???
Lunacy mage is only one tier below all that, sitting next to Midrange Shaman (a deck that had literally zero unfavorable matchups . . . there was nothing anyone managed to make with a consistent >50% winrate against it) and the pre-nerf Cube Lock.
Apparently the original Warsong Commander / Grim Patron warrior was less degenerate than current-day Lunacy Mage and last-meta Weapon Rogue. I like Clark Hellscream and his content (when he isn't platforming Zeddy), but that list smacked of short memory and bias toward current issues. Honestly, I think it's a microcosm of a lot of what goes on in this orum.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
And btw tick is no good. If you play a deck that doesn’t punish the opponent for playing a 6 mana card with no instant impact (and no, 6 mana 8/8 has no impact. It’s just stats and stats on expensive cards are almost irrelevant), then maybe you a) shouldn’t play such a greedy deck (which isn’t fun to play against) or b) accept, that there are bad matchups. And whoever concedes just because he saw tick doesn’t understand the game. It’s irrelevant unless you are going to less than 5 cards consistently or you are playing combo with tutor effects. The one big exception is big priest in wild since it is nearly impossible to outvalue them card by card, so tick has an impact here.
the Silas deck is a control deck with finisher.
if anything jarraxus might be a problem in standard, but just kill the lock in the first 10 - 12 turns (which is not Aggro, just modern hs: kill the opponent fast or lose)
people saying control is unplayable because of tick are just whining. If you wanna see something that really makes control “unplayable” (I still do) then I invite you to some games against raza or big priest.
And I know what I’m talking about, getting legend every month with homebrew decks.
Note: cards that are more than 4 maybe 5 mana and come down around turn 8-10 ( normal tick turns) need to win the game often. If they don’t, they’re just garbage, because they are way to slow.
In standard, you often lose to the second tick from ysharaj, but this is a 10 mana play like bloodreaver or nzoth. 10 mana cards have to be game ending or they don’t see play.
furthermore, cthun is an argument for tick not against it. Most people don’t enjoy games lasting 25 turns just to lose to this boring card
Well written and I agree, Shadow Hunter Vol'jin has a lot of potential for trying to mess up Tick Lock and others.
However, I just hit 28-13 with Silas Warrior against Tick Lock. It's not that hopeless a match. It's my hope that by the end of this meta, I will finally have enough individual stats that it actually IS a relevant sample size, at which point we can finally draw some conclusions.
How does your deck fair against, well everything else. It’s gotta be hard to maintain that armor level against aggro and mid range decks. Do you have a secondary win condition?
messed up the quote box a bit
Anyway, the mage matchup basically goes the way every other opponent vs mage goes right now. If they manage to get Lunacy in the first few turns, it's a complete crap shoot, though probably not going to go my way. If the mage deck is forced to play its own game, I basically never lose, as whatever comes out of Font of Power is going to die easily, and the burn isn't enough to stand up to the armor gain.
Paladin is a hell of a fight. Surprisingly enough, the paladin match DOES often come down to the combo turn. Usually a win involves fending off as much of the early game as possible, getting to a low life total, swinging the board and the armor total with a Barov plus Rancor turn, and then deploying either kargath prime or saurfang plus rushers to hold onto the tempo game after the board clear. A loss looks like . . . um, any part of that going wrong.
Rogue is generally a decent matchup. For one thing, I've learned to hard mulligan for ooze and things that can kill watch posts. If it's the poison rogue (surprisingly common at high legend), they generally play as if the opponent won't be playing any weapon destruction. The rest just depends on how much damage the watch posts manage to do.
Haven't had much issue with the occasional hunter or death rattle stuff. I suspect the god draw of the Deathrattle Demon Hunter would take me out, but I just haven't seen much of them.
Ironically, I occasionally see a different type of mage which uses Wildfire and Mordesh. That mage takes me down with ease just because it holds the armor total down and demands answers to more creatures than spell mage ever has. It's much better set up to handle my deck, but as most things in this game, one has to accept a bad matchup or two with most decks they pick. I suspect this type of mage will see more play after whatever nerfs happen, so the Silas Warrior may be doomed at that point, but que sera.
It's not a bad deck to be playing in this meta, honestly. I'm not making a lot of headway beyond top 500 legend due to the prevalence of paladin, but we shall see how it goes after the nerfs.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Btw, Rattlegore+faceless is op vs druid, he do the 7 mana spell and with only 2 mana you get 2 rattlegores on board and he's done
Your lack of understanding isn’t a counter argument. Tick is never played before turn 8, and likely not often played before turn 10, depending on the matchup, so a 70%+ win rate when played is very telling of the deck’s overall performance in control matchups. If you can’t make that leap in logic I don’t know what to tell you. If you think a 6 mana 8/8 that burns 5 cards from your opponent’s deck is no good then I think that says all we need to know about your grasp of the game. Jaraxxus and tick are both a problem if other control decks are to have a chance in this meta. That’s not debatable.
Jarraxus beats every control deck and as long as it remains in core, warlock will always win control vs control. It's not to do with tickatus. If it was just tickatus, even priest could beat warlock a decent amount of the time. Maybe not tonnes, but at least more than 5% of the time. The reason is that they have the removal and can slam down big dragons and go face. Warlock actually doesn't put up many threats. What it does do is summon a 6/6 demon every turn though and it wins in fatigue due to tickatus as well.
Warrior is just always going to be weak vs jarraxus. The only deck that may have been able to keep up which is sort of control (but arguably not really) was quest warrior, but that went to wild. Summoning two 4/4s a turn is also pretty good. Warlock has infinite value though and the other classes do not.
Seems like it's been debated for an entire meta and counting. Folks assured us that control was doomed in the last meta, back when mercenary allowed triple Rattlegore to eat warlock for lunch. They were wrong, but they were damn sure it was not debatable.
Now, as I have said repeatedly, I am concerned about Jaraxxus's rework. That does seem to be a serious issue. But there isn't any reason to believe Tickatus is any more impactful now than it was a month ago. Furthermore, if Jaraxxus actually can do what Frost Lich Jaina and Deathstalker Rexxar did before him, then sooner or later the meta will refine the deck to the point where Tickatus isn't even included. Ultimately, whether Tickatus stays in the deck will depend on the prevalence of combo options, but as for a control vs control meta, Jaraxxus is all you need.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Tickatus mostly just means that despite drawing lots of cards, Control Warlock won't lose in Fatigue, and can keep up with other control decks.
The real strength is Lord Jaraxxus. A 2-mana 6/6 each turn from the hero power is like a Rattlegore that never shrinks. Starts off a bit smaller, but being able to chain Inferno!, with a few other cards or just the 3/8 weapon, a Warlock can keep up with Warrior's sticky minion, and eventually surpass it.
Twist + Strongman means you can clear the board while developing, and Y'sharrj gives an extra bump of reload.
Are you claiming Control isn’t doomed?
I mean Control barely exists and certainly not in the way it used to. Quasi combo/control and midrange/control hybrid decks have replaced the archetype.
I am a strong believer that anti-heropower tech should exist. Wild has a clunky two-card combo for that but standard has nothing
That. Tickatus is not the reason Warlock is strong vs other control decks, but the infinite cheap value Jarraxus can provide in the late game. Burning 5 cards (or even 10) from an opponent's deck is not a win condition. Slamming infinite stats almost for free coupled with a giant weapon is.
I'm not particularly concerned with subdividing the archtype to that extent. But then again, I've never really thought the distinction between control and combo was very instructive for most debates. Obviously, most combo decks have a more fragile win condition, but in the case of the Silas Warrior deck I've been talking about here, 28 cards in the deck are identical to how I would build a control warrior, and 2 card choices suddenly redefine the entire archetype. It's just not all that interesting to debate those distinctions.
However, I have been very willing to concede that playing the value game is a fool's errand against Jaraxxus. Tickatus could rotate tomorrow and that problem would still exist. That's why my point is not that there isn't a problem. My point is Tickatus ain't the problem.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Agree. Warlock kills control decks because it has better tools, more value and every other control deck has more limited resources. Tickatus hurts? yeah sure accelerates the match but Y´shaar for 2 extra disasters and Jaraxxus are the cards that actually win the game. You cant outlast Warlock not because you lose your deck but...because you can never keep a board.
Cards like RATTLEGOOOOOOOOOREEEEEeEEEeeeEEE needs a lot of set-up, tempo, and time to hit the face. Warlock only needs to play wards, press the buttom get 6/6s and hit the face wih their 3/8 weapon and their infinite amounst of minions to win. There is not way you can bea Warlock in the control match without a really really good outplay.
I mean, isn't it both? This is a game of inches where we complain when a deck wins 55% of the time. If Tickatus burns your win condition 10-15% of the time, that can shift a matchup from favorable to unfavorable.
I'm torn on Jarraxus. I think it's incredibly powerful right now because nobody else has a hero card. But at the end of the day, I'm not sure 9 mana, gain 5 armor and a equip a 3-damage weapon is going to be that oppressive. Historically it's tough to play a 9-cost card that doesn't affect the board (though 0-cost 6/6 taunts can certainly mitigate that issue). Seems like it's going to be a dead card in the overwhelming majority of their matchups.
Without Jaraxxus, Warlock has very limited ways to finish the game or prevent you for playing big cards after they destroy your deck. Historically Jaraxxus was ALWAYS good against control decks, it beat Warrior, Shaman and Priest controls pretty easy. The problem with Jaraxxus was that 15 HP make him pretty bad against non-control decks with actual big burst damage. Now that is not true anymore. Also is a 3/8 weapon. With the soulshard sustain this guy can obliterate any go-wide strategy on the late game pretty well and hold big aoe in hand to dealt with your last big minions. Its really problematic now. Even if you gift a hero card to other control decks you need something that is as good as Jaraxxus because not any hero power or battlecry can beat "summon a 6/6 every turn" its literally infinite big minions for the rest of the match.
You need to use your hand to keep on check a hero power? there is not way that a control deck beats that.
I'm not particularly concerned with subdividing the archtype to that extent. But then again, I've never really thought the distinction between control and combo was very instructive for most debates. Obviously, most combo decks have a more fragile win condition, but in the case of the Silas Warrior deck I've been talking about here, 28 cards in the deck are identical to how I would build a control warrior, and 2 card choices suddenly redefine the entire archetype. It's just not all that interesting to debate those distinctions.
I disagree with this, it isn't a semantical argument. Combo is an OTK deck where you look to draw X-number of cards that when played in the same turn will win the game. Control looks to outvalue the opponent and drop late game bombs. The distinctions are blurred because control no longer exists like it used to, and when given broken tools decks can get away with playing the best of both worlds. The quasi combo/control decks have always existed I believe but in modern HS they've become almost the only way to play 'control'. I'm not looking to debate the distinctions, just that we can recognise that there is a difference because without doing so it's hard to understand the real issues that I have with the game at the minute which I'll get too next.
However, I have been very willing to concede that playing the value game is a fool's errand against Jaraxxus. Tickatus could rotate tomorrow and that problem would still exist. That's why my point is not that there isn't a problem. My point is Tickatus ain't the problem.
I wouldn't even say Jaraxxus is THE problem (although he's one of them), the main problem imo is card draw and powercreep. Card draw is so cheap and effective, and some cards are so powerful when drawn, that Control decks are no longer winning the value game (unless they have card draw and something like Tick, Jaraxus, an OTK wincon or any other broken mechanic/card). I dislike Tickatus' design but nerfing him does absolutely nothing to slow the game down to a point where classic control style decks are playable. Tickatus is just a card which I believe highlights one of Blizzards key design philosophies (fast games), hence the visceral reaction it get's from control players.
Control decks have no room to breathe because laying off the gas for a turn means your opponent gains 8 cards, 10 mana, a 12/12 weapon and 15 life.
I didn't mean to suggest the control/combo thing was semantic. I'm just literally saying I myself don't really get into that particular argument. I understand it can be relevant at times.
As for Jaraxxus, I guess it's sort of circular. Upon further reflection, I realize that there probably won't be a time when Tickatus is voluntarily excluded from the deck, HOWEVER, the reason it will stay in the deck is not anything to do with other control decks. It is probably going to stick around in hopes of either hitting your opponent's Jaraxxus in the mirror or at least getting you ahead in the fatigue game ALSO IN THE MIRROR. If I'm correct about Jaraxxus, he will be the win condition that discourages other control decks, but you'll still get into the degenerate Lock vs Lock race to Tickatus game which frequently shows up today.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Man, I was just watching the latest Clark Hellscream video where he does a tier list of all the "most degenerate" decks in the history of Hearthstone. Holy crud, what an example of recent event bias!!!
I understand that it's meant to be an entertaining vid and also I get that comparing decks from totally different time periods in the game is difficult, but some of the comparisons made are just absolute bat shit crazy. His top of the top "SS tier" decks are somewhat reasonable, but then you see last-meta weapon rogue in the same tier as pre-nerf Quest rogue, pre-nerf Barnes rez Priest, and NAGA SEA WITCH GIANTS LOCK???
Lunacy mage is only one tier below all that, sitting next to Midrange Shaman (a deck that had literally zero unfavorable matchups . . . there was nothing anyone managed to make with a consistent >50% winrate against it) and the pre-nerf Cube Lock.
Apparently the original Warsong Commander / Grim Patron warrior was less degenerate than current-day Lunacy Mage and last-meta Weapon Rogue. I like Clark Hellscream and his content (when he isn't platforming Zeddy), but that list smacked of short memory and bias toward current issues. Honestly, I think it's a microcosm of a lot of what goes on in this orum.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Nah, it's going to be Warlock as always. There won't be any other control deck as long as there is a card that can wreck 1/3 of your deck casually.
Youtube: Youtube Channel
Twitter: Twitter Account