Re: "Jaraxxus is fine against non-Zephrys decks" - He should also be at the very least playable against Zephrys decks, given that Zephrys isn't a tech, but a staple in over 30% of ladder decks. A counter is fine, even a hard counter (see Flare vs all Secrets, Ooze vs all Weapons or Hex/Polymorph vs Tirion Fordring). A counter should not, however, deliver instant victory. If Jaraxxus needs more counterplay than Oozing his weapon or "just hit him in the face," then the card needs to be completely redesigned so that it doesn't replace your hero, because a staple card that punishes Jaraxxus by instantly winning is quite clearly not acceptable. As I said before, if there was a card in the classic set that Zephrys could generate, which instantly killed Dr Boom, Hagatha or Zul'Jin, there would be a fucking uproar, and rightly so. Jaraxxus may not be a hero card but he functions as one.
I would actually love to see a singleton-deck build-around legendary that could insta-kill hero cards. I dislike hero cards as much as you hate this interaction. So here we are, back to a matter of opinion about two cards that have zero impact on the meta either way.
By the way, there are plenty of individual cards that sit dead in your hand forever against certain decks, so that's not much of an argument. If Jaraxxus is literally your one and only win condition, your deck is terrible anyway and you deserve to lose. Jaraxxus the card may never be able to stand up against Zephrys the card, but it's nobody's fault but yours if your Jaraxxus deck can't stand up against the singleton deck.
I don't know where you even get the idea that Jaraxxus "should" be playable against Zephrys decks. There have always been plenty of deck archetypes that stand absolutely no chance against, say, a Jaraxxus Control deck. That's why he used to be so popular. He may not have insta-killed them, but the outcome was just as inevitable.
Its not about liking or disliking the interaction. From a design philosophy and game balance standpoint "Draw card x, if card y has been played, win the game." Is atrocious design, especially in the instance that card x is not a tech card specifically played for matchups with decks containing card y, but a staple that appears in a third of decks in the standard metagame and has incredible utility beyond this use. With that said I do think a card that is completely fucking useless in almost all other cases, and only playable in one class is borderline acceptable (Sac Pact prior to the introduction of Zephrys). When card x completely locks a player out of playing card y, while also fulfilling every other role in the game, card x is too powerful. As stated before I think the power level of Zephrys otherwise is reasonable considering the cost of activation, but generating Sac Pact against Jaraxxus is a step too far.
High cost cards or cards that aren't particularly useful in a specific matchup can sit dead in your hand for a long time, this is true. But that's either because the game ended before you accrued enough mana to use the card, a situation where the card would be useful didn't arise during the game, or you failed to see a way to use the card creatively in a mathup where it is not normally very useful. This is far removed from not being allowed to play a card because you will automatically lose the game every single time if your opponent is holding the single-card answer, or happens to draw it before you win.
"There have always been plenty of deck archetypes that stand absolutely no chance against, say, a Jaraxxus Control deck. That's why he used to be so popular. He may not have insta-killed them, but the outcome was just as inevitable." This is false. The worst polarisation we have ever seen was Boomsday meta's Odd Warrior vs Quest Rogue, which was over 80% in favour of the Quest Rogue at a high level of play, but at no point has it ever been impossible to win any given matchup. Additionally, steep polarisation of this sort has been a source of numerous complaints in the past and was very much seen as a problem that needed to be fixed. In any case, no one has suggested Warlock is incapable of beating Zephrys with Jaraxxus in their deck, simply that it is detrimental to game balance and entertainment value that a card has been (quite unnecessarily) rendered unplayable. More to the point than meta polarisation, however - there has never before existed a card that you can't play for fear of immediately losing the game to a single card that is run in a large percentage of decks, neither should there be. Players should be free to use their classic class legendary (no matter how bad it is) without being forced into not playing it because of a tired relic meme from vanilla days has now become a significant force in the meta.
Bottom line here is I'm not trying to express my opinion about whether hero cards or instagibbing Jaraxxus is "fun" or not, I'm trying to explain from a design perspective that making a card completely unplayable only serves to take something away from the game and does not add anything to it. If effectively removing Jaraxxus from the card pool would lead to a blossoming of several new strategies that he was holding back (which could well have actually happened with Dr. Boom - Mad Genius), then I'd be all for it, but it does not. It just gives the player base one less card to play with.
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,
Sac Pact can't only be used against Jaraxxus, it can also destroy Demon-Type minions on the board. An actual reasonable use of the card.
And Jaraxxus is totally fine against decks that don't have Zephrys, or after Zephrys has already been used. An actual reasonable use of THAT card.
The argument was more along the lines of - Sacrificial Pact killing the enemy hero outright is not reasonable now that it is so widely available to players who don't put it into their deck or even play the correct class for it.
It adds no strategic depth to the game, but removes it - a card with a highly drastic effect is no longer playable, for literally no reason.
It adds no entertainment value to the game - it might be fun to kill Jaraxxus with a Sac Pact but it will never happen because no one can include him in their deck anymore.
There is no reasonable use of Jaraxxus while Zephrys exists. He sits dead in your hand while you wait for Zephrys to be played. Zephrys is played and kills you with a Fireball. You can't play Jaraxxus next turn because you are dead. Zephrys wins this trade every single time and that isn't to his own credit as a card, its because this interaction (which was completely fine in vanilla days, but is now absolutely toxic due to it being available to one third of decks on the standard ladder without them having to sacrifice a deck slot to it) exists.
Re: "Jaraxxus is fine against non-Zephrys decks" - He should also be at the very least playable against Zephrys decks, given that Zephrys isn't a tech, but a staple in over 30% of ladder decks. A counter is fine, even a hard counter (see Flare vs all Secrets, Ooze vs all Weapons or Hex/Polymorph vs Tirion Fordring). A counter should not, however, deliver instant victory. If Jaraxxus needs more counterplay than Oozing his weapon or "just hit him in the face," then the card needs to be completely redesigned so that it doesn't replace your hero, because a staple card that punishes Jaraxxus by instantly winning is quite clearly not acceptable. As I said before, if there was a card in the classic set that Zephrys could generate, which instantly killed Dr Boom, Hagatha or Zul'Jin, there would be a fucking uproar, and rightly so. Jaraxxus may not be a hero card but he functions as one.
I'll let it be known that I don't sit in the anti-Zephrys camp in general, I think he is a cool card and adds a lot of strategic depth to the game generally speaking, but this interaction is an exception and I feel it could easily be removed without negatively impacting Zephrys as a card (after all no one plays Jaraxxus anyway huhuhu) while improving the experience for any player (casual, professional, whatever) who wants to put Jaraxxus in their deck and not immediately get unreasonably punished for doing so. Only upsides and no downsides.
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,
Sac Pact can't only be used against Jaraxxus, it can also destroy Demon-Type minions on the board. An actual reasonable use of the card.
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.
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.
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. 👍
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.
Agree, this interaction is stupid. Jaraxxus is completely unplayable in any format where Zephrys and this interaction exist. Its not like Jaraxxus is even a good card but he should at least be playable. Warlock pretty much can't have a late game strategy that doesn't involve plot twist as long as they don't have access to an alternative hero power (the Quest one doesn't count as its still draw and plot twist reliant) because life tap becomes useless in the later stages of the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
⚙
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Its not about liking or disliking the interaction. From a design philosophy and game balance standpoint "Draw card x, if card y has been played, win the game." Is atrocious design, especially in the instance that card x is not a tech card specifically played for matchups with decks containing card y, but a staple that appears in a third of decks in the standard metagame and has incredible utility beyond this use. With that said I do think a card that is completely fucking useless in almost all other cases, and only playable in one class is borderline acceptable (Sac Pact prior to the introduction of Zephrys). When card x completely locks a player out of playing card y, while also fulfilling every other role in the game, card x is too powerful. As stated before I think the power level of Zephrys otherwise is reasonable considering the cost of activation, but generating Sac Pact against Jaraxxus is a step too far.
High cost cards or cards that aren't particularly useful in a specific matchup can sit dead in your hand for a long time, this is true. But that's either because the game ended before you accrued enough mana to use the card, a situation where the card would be useful didn't arise during the game, or you failed to see a way to use the card creatively in a mathup where it is not normally very useful. This is far removed from not being allowed to play a card because you will automatically lose the game every single time if your opponent is holding the single-card answer, or happens to draw it before you win.
"There have always been plenty of deck archetypes that stand absolutely no chance against, say, a Jaraxxus Control deck. That's why he used to be so popular. He may not have insta-killed them, but the outcome was just as inevitable." This is false. The worst polarisation we have ever seen was Boomsday meta's Odd Warrior vs Quest Rogue, which was over 80% in favour of the Quest Rogue at a high level of play, but at no point has it ever been impossible to win any given matchup. Additionally, steep polarisation of this sort has been a source of numerous complaints in the past and was very much seen as a problem that needed to be fixed. In any case, no one has suggested Warlock is incapable of beating Zephrys with Jaraxxus in their deck, simply that it is detrimental to game balance and entertainment value that a card has been (quite unnecessarily) rendered unplayable. More to the point than meta polarisation, however - there has never before existed a card that you can't play for fear of immediately losing the game to a single card that is run in a large percentage of decks, neither should there be. Players should be free to use their classic class legendary (no matter how bad it is) without being forced into not playing it because of a tired relic meme from vanilla days has now become a significant force in the meta.
Bottom line here is I'm not trying to express my opinion about whether hero cards or instagibbing Jaraxxus is "fun" or not, I'm trying to explain from a design perspective that making a card completely unplayable only serves to take something away from the game and does not add anything to it. If effectively removing Jaraxxus from the card pool would lead to a blossoming of several new strategies that he was holding back (which could well have actually happened with Dr. Boom - Mad Genius), then I'd be all for it, but it does not. It just gives the player base one less card to play with.
The argument was more along the lines of - Sacrificial Pact killing the enemy hero outright is not reasonable now that it is so widely available to players who don't put it into their deck or even play the correct class for it.
It adds no strategic depth to the game, but removes it - a card with a highly drastic effect is no longer playable, for literally no reason.
It adds no entertainment value to the game - it might be fun to kill Jaraxxus with a Sac Pact but it will never happen because no one can include him in their deck anymore.
There is no reasonable use of Jaraxxus while Zephrys exists. He sits dead in your hand while you wait for Zephrys to be played. Zephrys is played and kills you with a Fireball. You can't play Jaraxxus next turn because you are dead. Zephrys wins this trade every single time and that isn't to his own credit as a card, its because this interaction (which was completely fine in vanilla days, but is now absolutely toxic due to it being available to one third of decks on the standard ladder without them having to sacrifice a deck slot to it) exists.
Re: "Jaraxxus is fine against non-Zephrys decks" - He should also be at the very least playable against Zephrys decks, given that Zephrys isn't a tech, but a staple in over 30% of ladder decks. A counter is fine, even a hard counter (see Flare vs all Secrets, Ooze vs all Weapons or Hex/Polymorph vs Tirion Fordring). A counter should not, however, deliver instant victory. If Jaraxxus needs more counterplay than Oozing his weapon or "just hit him in the face," then the card needs to be completely redesigned so that it doesn't replace your hero, because a staple card that punishes Jaraxxus by instantly winning is quite clearly not acceptable. As I said before, if there was a card in the classic set that Zephrys could generate, which instantly killed Dr Boom, Hagatha or Zul'Jin, there would be a fucking uproar, and rightly so. Jaraxxus may not be a hero card but he functions as one.
I'll let it be known that I don't sit in the anti-Zephrys camp in general, I think he is a cool card and adds a lot of strategic depth to the game generally speaking, but this interaction is an exception and I feel it could easily be removed without negatively impacting Zephrys as a card (after all no one plays Jaraxxus anyway huhuhu) while improving the experience for any player (casual, professional, whatever) who wants to put Jaraxxus in their deck and not immediately get unreasonably punished for doing so. Only upsides and no downsides.
Sac Pact can't only be used against Jaraxxus, it can also destroy Demon-Type minions on the board. An actual reasonable use of the card.
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.
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 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. 👍
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.
More to the point - Jaraxxus being unplayable doesn't add any strategic depth or fun to the game. Therefore fix this pointless issue.
Zephrys wins this trade also.
Agree, this interaction is stupid. Jaraxxus is completely unplayable in any format where Zephrys and this interaction exist. Its not like Jaraxxus is even a good card but he should at least be playable. Warlock pretty much can't have a late game strategy that doesn't involve plot twist as long as they don't have access to an alternative hero power (the Quest one doesn't count as its still draw and plot twist reliant) because life tap becomes useless in the later stages of the game.