The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Resolved: The Grim Patron Warrior deck ought to be nerfed in Hearthstone.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2015 Category: Games
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 613 times Debate No: 79289
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Accept in first post, no arguments there. Do feel free to put definitions if you feel they are necessary.
We're talking about Blizzard's card game Hearthstone constructed mode.
2nd Post: Opening Argument
3rd Post: 1st Rebuttal
4th Post: 2nd Rebuttal (No New points, but new arguments can be used to refute your opponent's points)
5th Post: Summary Speeches (No New Arguments or Points, this speech is just to summarize and weigh arguments)
Feel free to accept you don't need to comment I accept.


Firstly, there is no such thing as a Grim Patron Warrior deck, it's a Warrior deck which can be used by Grim Patron or the golden character for that class (not specific to the character).

On another note, I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Def: HS is an online TCG by Blizzard. Patron Warrior deck utilizes the cards Warsong Commander, Patron, and Frothing Berserker with tons of whirlwind effects to create giant boards of three attack creatures or even OTKO opponents with a giant Frothing. Emperor is a 6 mana 5-5 with card text: "At the end of your turn, reduce the cost of all card in your hand by (1)."
Plan Text: Blizzard ought to nerf the card Emperor Thaurissan.
T: Emperor is run in every Patron deck since it is insanely good in combo decks.
Value: Fairness, as a card should be nerfed if it creates unfair scenarios or is unfairly good. Fairness: the state, condition, or quality of being fair; free from bias or injustice (
Standard: We must weigh the card Emperor like Blizzard did with previous nerfs; this is the best as we will see if Emperor is as OP as cards that have been nerfed in the past.
Part 1: Proof of OPNess
Emperor"s main issue is it enable combos from EMPTY boards that can do insane damage. Examples: (dies from 51 health) (gets by two 9-9 taunts; Trump not dark bombing face doesn"t matter as Emperor and Armorsmith trading in first allows LifeCoach to swing Deaths Bite and live with one health) All patron games in their respective series, I"m not cherrypicking
But this is the plan text as it is insane in other decks too. Take StrifeOTKO Mage: This deck can do infinite damage by playing Emperor with Apprentice2x-Echo-Archmage in hand, duplicating Emperor, playing it again, and then puking everything at 9 mana. Yes, this can guarantee INFINITE DAMAGE TURN 9. In Maly Lock, Maly-Darkbomb2x-Soulfire is an unstoppable 25 face damage with one Emperor activation, and in combo druid, where one activation gives you a ten mana super combo for 22 damage.
This is unhealthy because it warps the metagame into Combo Decks abusing Emperor or agro decks that kill you before the combo.
Results of Patron are good but the deck is BETTER than the results show. Every day we hear stories of missed lethals, but as players play the deck more, misplay levels decrease and the winrate will go higher. Freeze Mage is one of the best decks, and Handlock and Malylock are both solid in the most versatile class in the game. The reason Patron is the best is it can run cards like Shield Block and Harrison for the Aggro Paladin and Face Hunter matchups. I"m not the only one saying this. Some of the most popular HS streamers, including Trump, StrifeCro, and Noxious (the former two are part of ATLC finalist teams) have argued that Patron needs a nerf, and Strife agrees to my plan of nerfing Emperor.
Part 2: Weighing
So does this make Patron decks nerf worthy, especially Emperor? Consider why the previous nerfs in HS happened " Undertaker, Flare, Auctioneer, Soulfire, Leeroy - how does Emperor compare to these? Emperor, like Undertaker, is good if it gets one round of value and insane if it gets multiple. Up to nine free mana is a bigger impact than +1/+1. Emperor invalidates slow decks just like Flare destroyed decks with secrets. Auctioneer just drew a bunch of cards while Emperor gains you a bunch of mana, but Emperor is more versatile since it makes minions cheaper. Soulfire was free burst like Emperor enables huge burst. Leeroy is the best comparison " both had huge OTKO combos. As you can see, Emperor"s power level is on par with previously banned stuff. Prefer this weighing to anything my opponent does as Blizzard hopes to stay consistent with their banning and take away uncompetitive strategies.
Part 3: Underview
No neg RVIs or NIBS: RVI"s destroy my ability to read theory because you can collapse in the NR; incentivize you to be abusive in the NC because you can just go for RVI or one dropped condition in the 2NR. You can win off truly abusive positions just by virtue of the last speech with new arguments - making 1AR theory a game over for me. Destroys education because you are incentivized to be abusive and then collapse the theory plus the RVI. I will have to win something with less time since I have to focus on multiple issues as well.
All neg counterplans must have 2 solvency advocates - only way to differentiate between actual lit and fringe blogs. I can"t prepare for infinite NCs so at least ignore ones that are complete crap. I meet since shows a bunch of pros who agree Emperor is insane, and I also showed people who think Patron is insane.
Presume aff: a. You assume a statement is true if it sounds reasonable. Since many people agree Emperor is OP you can treat aff as reasonable. b. Strat skew: I have to debate blind, but the neg can alter their strat since they speak second; he gets new arguments last and convince you last, advantages that influence judges.

Since I believe Emperor leads to unfair strategies with OTKO combos, especially in Patron, I strongly urge affirmation. I await my opponent"s arguments. GL.


I'm going to say something so simple that it will make you cry.

If the Warrior deck needs to be nerfed, everyone can just use it until then. The deck is available for all to use and there is absolutely nothing preventing every user from using it.

Everything you've said doesn't prove that it's more powerful than the other decks only that it is able to both defend and attack and you seem to have some major problem that defense intentivizes aggressive gameplay because the other guy can't fight back as a hard to your armor. Woop-de-doo, how do warrior decks lose games to non warrior decks then? That's what I thought.

Thanks and goodbye.

If it needed to be nerfed it would be unbeatable, until then there's just skill to gain or warrior decks to buy, get over it I'm a hunter specialist and hunter deck counters warrior deck so hard as does the rogue's one so get over it there's more powerful decks.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm sorry, but you really don't understand what a balanced metagame really is. Let's just go through all your misconceptions.
1. You said there is no such thing as a Grim Patron Warrior deck, and that Grim Patron is a class and has a golden character. That is not true. Warrior is a class which can choose between Garrosh Hellscream and Magni Bronzebeard as its heroes, and Grim Patron is a card. So yes, a Grim Patron Warrior deck does exist. shows this.
2. You didn't contest framework or definitions so sorry, but you basically just lose the debate because of that. The standard is going to be based off Blizzard's earlier bans, so I don't care whether you think it's OK for the meta to be warped or not. Back when Miracle Rogue was the best deck, Blizzard still nerfed it. It isn't fun to just queue in to Patron Warrior mirrors 24/7 or face aggro decks. According to Tempo Storm's Power Rankings, ( Patron is ranked second alongside some aggro decks, but people think Patron should probably be first because it has a good matchup against Secret/Agro Pally. So since you didn't refute my arguments, they still stand. The meta is just combo and aggro decks, and that is not what Blizzard wants. It's not fun to have this metagame, and nerfing Emperor will help.
3. Not everyone can play Patron. What if they don't have the cards yet? Do you want them to just lose every game until they can afford the Patron deck? If a game is not conducive to newer players, then nobody will play the game besides the people already playing. Blizzard wants growth in their games, so having a flawed system where nobody new plays is a terrible idea.
4. You probably aren't a hunter specialist because Face Hunter has an awful matchup. According to Th3Rat, a Patron specialist, "Face Hunter (Smash All Day):

Probably your best match-up (...) This match-up is extremely straightforward."
Face Hunter has an atrocious matchup. The Midrange Hunter matchup on the other hand, is about 50-50. Th3Rat says it is Hunter favored but Tempo Storm says it is Patron favored, it really depends on the lists, kind of like Control Warrior vs Handlock. So unless you specifically tech for Patron, which is proof that Patron is dominating the meta, you won't be having that good of a matchup vs it.
5. As for the rogue part, Th3 Rat continues:
"Oil Rogue (Smashable):

People believe that Oil Rogue is this godawful match-up for Patron Warrior and I don"t see it. There are two ways that you can lose vs Oil Rogue, letting them get minions on the board during the early to mid-game and over committing to a board full of Patrons. Fortunately for you, your weapons match up perfectly against the threats you can expect Oil Rogue to play against you. Death"s Bite lines up perfectly against Violet Teacher and Fiery War Axe lets you handle either Earthen Ring Farseer or SI:7 Agent efficiently. If you don"t get a weapon the game can get out of control quickly since they can burst you with Tinker's Sharpsword Oil. Focus on playing around Blade Flurry when a 3 attack+ weapon is equipped." So even though it is a tough matchup, Patron can win.
6. You dropped my arguments about the other decks. Oops. So unless you think an OTK turn 9 is healthy, Emperor needs a nerf, which means I win right there.
So for fun, let's recap how many ways I am winning. You never address my points, only claiming that it doesn"t need a nerf because anyone can play Patron, but new players won"t join if there is only one dominant deck. You don"t understand the matchup tables unless your Hunter is specifically teched for Patron. You started this debate by saying Grim Patron Warrior is not a deck, so you don"t even know what classes are in the game. Your argument is irrelevant because you dropped framework. You"re losing every way in the world. Can you really claim this is balanced?
Judge, this is an easy affirmative vote. We cannot continue to have this cancer in the meta. Patron is disgusting and needs a nerf. Vote Aff.


If it's overpowered, everyone's entitled to use it. If people don't have the cards yet then, like with every deck on Hearthstone, they have to play enough to earn it or pay real money to quickly get it. This is not something unique to that deck as opposed to others.

No need to nerf it at all. Why not make the other decks more powerful, why nerf the Warrior deck?
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4


Once again, your argument is irrelevant because you dropped framework. We have to compare how good patron is now to how good previous decks were that got nerfed. Let me quote what you dropped:
Standard: We must weigh the card Emperor like Blizzard did with previous nerfs; this is the best as we will see if Emperor is as OP as cards that have been nerfed in the past.
And I compared Emperor to Leeroy, Soulfire, Undertaker, and more and you had no response to that. This is over. Vote Aff.


Tough forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by soccerisfun 1 year ago
Note to judges plz watch my links especially if you dont know how HS works to understand the argumetns better
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Ff, Arguments: Con's arguments were weak and speculative while Pro provided logical points.