Hearthpwn

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Quote from Eirz >>

The reason why this card is good:

The worst case, it's just a 2/3 and you burn a random card. But this won't make you lose the game.

On the other hand, if you burn a specific, needed combo card, maybe an Auctioneer when your opponent was waiting for this top deck with a full hand of spells, then you just win the game. Even if the chance for this to happen is like 3%, it's still possible.

but since this card is warlock only, we won't see it much anyway i guess

 This is incorrect and I don't know why people keep saying it. How is it not a downside if you burn a random card? Every time your opponent burns a random card they go one stop closer to that "needed combo card", such as an Auctioneer.

You could burn their Auctioneer or you could push them one turn closer to it, in fact the latter is more likely. 

edit -- 

Quote from Eirz >>

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Quote from Eirz >>

The reason why this card is good:

The worst case, it's just a 2/3 and you burn a random card. But this won't make you lose the game.

On the other hand, if you burn a specific, needed combo card, maybe an Auctioneer when your opponent was waiting for this top deck with a full hand of spells, then you just win the game. Even if the chance for this to happen is like 3%, it's still possible.

but since this card is warlock only, we won't see it much anyway i guess

 This is incorrect and I don't know why people keep saying it. How is it not a downside if you burn a random card? Every time your opponent burns a random card they go one stop closer to that "needed combo card", such as an Auctioneer.

You could burn their Auctioneer or you could push them one turn closer to it, in fact the latter is more likely. 

Even if, it doesn't make you lose the game just because your opponent drew the card he needed 1 turn earlier. He still needs to play the card. But losing a key card entirely can make you lose the game. The upside of this card is greater than it's downside. With a neutral tag, this card would have caused a lot of tears.

A card that encourages even more aggro fiesta. Congratz for the design, Blizzard.

Quote from Zukuu >>

 How?

Quote from Ponciliano >>

A card that encourages even more aggro fiesta. Congratz for the design, Blizzard.

Quote from XanXon >>

Quote from Calmon >>

/r/magicTCG is joking about you guys who think this card is more than a simple 2/3 for 2 mana. The big amount of 'meta breaking' votings just show, how bad you are in math/logic.

 You guys are thinking how bad we are, we however aren't thinking about you at all.

Quote from tictactucroc >>

 

-From the Gnomeferatu user point of view, Gnomeferatu is WORSE than River Crocolisk. Even though you will sometimes CRUSH an opponent with this card, most of the time you will help him win the game, because there are far less key cards than the total 30 cards in any given deck and you are thinning the opponent's deck. On average, river crocolisk is a better card, itdoes not thin the opponent's deck, and has a beast tag, but you lose the ability to be a jerk and ruin someone's day from time to time.

Quote from asteroidm >>

Quote from wtk300 >>

Lets say you play 100 games against a deck with 5 very important cards. If your opponent draws fewer of them during a game they have significantly lower chance of winning.

On average games go for 14 turns. Your opponent draws 20 cards including 3.33 important ones on average.

Now imagine you play 100 more games, but this time you put Gnomeferatu into your deck. Let's say you play one Gnomeferatu each game. How many important cards will your opponent draw on average after 20 drawn cards? It was 3.33 when you wasn't playing Gnomeferatu  and it's 3.33 per game when you do play it every game. It's not even 1% less, it's exactly the same (unless your opponent goes to fatigue, and he/she doesn't because you play warlock).

You are literally, LITERALLY making up statistics.  There are so many flaws here besides.  It's FINE if he draws 3.33 (made up fucking number) important cards.  I know he is short one execute or both now that he has used one.  For that specific game that information IS important.  Further more it lowers his chance to draw the other execute.  Which is valuable information for that specific game.  I pointed out the actual issues with this card, but making up numbers and ignoring the specific information you gather and resource you burn for a specific game is really, really amazing mind gymnastics.  

But since you are into math lets look at this shall we.  30 cards per deck, opponent starts the round with three and a draw, leaving 26 in his deck.  Assuming both of his Frostbolt are in his deck (a middling card so I can't be accused of creating a dream scenario) his chance to draw one on his next draw is 2 in 26 or roughly 7.7%.  You coin out Gnomeferatu.   You burn a frost bolt.  He now has 25 cards in his deck and assuming his other frost bolt is not in hand his chance of drawing that Frostbolt is now 1/25 or 4%.  Nearly half of what it was. The nearly half chance lost of drawing that card is pretty much true at any point of the game as long as both cards are in the deck.  

I don't think I have to point out that if he uses a Frostbolt and you burn the other that his chance of drawing one is now 0%, You can probably figure that out.  It is mage though so it's just as possible for him to random into such, but you can be assured that he isn't drawing any.  

The point of the card isn't to remove all his good shit, the point of the card is to destroy a resource and then to gain information from that so you can know how to better fight the rest of that game.  Sometimes you get something good, sometimes you get some meh, others you destroy something really bad and screw yourself over.  But any information you can gather, especially when it involves what resources your opponent has available can be valuable.  

You shouldn't be looking at how many useful cards he drew and how many you destroyed over the course of 100 games.  The questions should be how many times did me destroying a resource get information that was useful enough to help me win.  A questions whose answer is very much up in the air in my opinion.

Quote from Eirz >>

The reason why this card is good:

The worst case, it's just a 2/3 and you burn a random card. But this won't make you lose the game.

On the other hand, if you burn a specific, needed combo card, maybe an Auctioneer when your opponent was waiting for this top deck with a full hand of spells, then you just win the game. Even if the chance for this to happen is like 3%, it's still possible.

but since this card is warlock only, we won't see it much anyway i guess

Quote from BloodySundae77 >>

Quote from Hannya >>

Quote from BloodySundae77 >>

Quote from tictactucroc >>

Quote from SgtInvincibl >>

Quote from Barozzo >>

Incredible good card that punishes combo decks

 Hey Barozzo,

 Can you explain how this punishes combo decks, that weren't going to go to fatigue?

 

This card doesn't punish combo decks, because it can't consistently discard the combo pieces, that's it.

 Of course it can punish combo decks. All cards used there are crucial, and almost all are necessary for the combo. Even when you run duplicates for consistency, you usually spend one just to survive (for example a Fireball or an Ice Block). Not to mention that your opponent will use 2 of these babies for maximum deck disruption. Add 2 Dirty Rats & prepare for a salt storm.

 If all cards in a combo deck are crucial, then that dictates that a combo deck must draw all 30 cards in order to combo, which isn't true.

Combo decks use about 5-6 key cards which are held in the hand for the majority of the game. Dirty Rat is good because it forces them out of the hand. This card is not, because it so likely to burn one of the other 25 cards.

As it stands, there's no point teching this card when you can tech Dirty Rat.

 They are crucial because they are part of an optimised - and very possibly netdecked - strategy, which as I explained is not limited to ONLY the combo, but surviving until the moment you find it, and ensuring your card draw and extra card generation is such that puts your odds at winning where they should be.

Quote from asteroidm >>

 

Quote from Horkinger >>

Quote from arsartis >>

Independently from the real power of the battlecry, what I don't understand is why a lot of people says that playing a 2/3 on turn 2 will cost the player the game. It's not a Totem Golem, but if it's a fairly stated minion. If you play this in turn 2 and you lose, it's probably because of the rest of the deck (of course Warlock is not at his best atm) and not for having played a 2/3 on curve.

From the comments it seems like it's a 0/1 that damages the owner every turn!

 It won't lose you the game on the spot, just because you have it in your deck. You will also not lose solely because you are playing River Crocolisk .

BUT it is a 2/3 and does nothing to affect the board or Card Advantage. It actually is a river Crocolisk. Any 2/3 that is currently played does reliably something useful, at least in the right matchups. Arcanologist pulls a secret (value), Golakka Crawler kills pirates (tempo) and with that they serve their purpose and justify their inclusion. Even in the rare matchup against Combo decks in which Gnomeferatu can win you the game, there is only a very low Chance that it actually pulls the crucial minion/Card. And there will be a Card that is actually useful in some matchups (like eater of secrets will be much better in quest mage matchups than Gnomeferatu or Dark Peddler ).

If you decide to include Gnomeferatu, you Need to cut another Card. Which likely will have more Impact on the game. Thus, by including Gnomeferatu, you will decrease your overall winrate.

 

 

 Arcanologist does nothing if you have drawn your secrets and Golakka IS a river Croc if they have no pirates.  Obviously it's unlikely to have drawn all your secrets but it is possible and has happened to me.  The gnome on the other hand can do something really good or really bad for you.  For example it could mill an execute, and since Hearthstone deck drawing is actually just a random card from your deck (no actual deck order) then you decrease the chance of the second execute being drawn and used by half, or if they have already used the other one (not likely on turn 2 but in later turns, obviously) you know you no longer have to play around it.  Now you only really benefit from this data and state if you live longer enough.  So it's not immediate.  Likewise you may get rid of some trash they didn't want and draw them closer to something they did, which sucks.

I will say this though, this card is basically mill play you often see in games, where they know you have too many cards so they force a draw or two to force a mill on your turn.  Sometimes the play is overly cute and necessary.  Sometimes very effective.  This card is the upside to that strat without the downside of drawing them into more cards first.  Which I think makes it worth playing around with if not necessarily good.

Quote from achan1058 >>

 This is also not true. Burning a card from the top of the deck is the same as burning a card from the bottom, so it's basically no better or worse than river croc if it doesn't hit fatigue. However, I forgot about tutor effects, which actually matters that a card is burned. Still, the effect is too small to matter and I stand by my original opinion: Unless Blizzard prints a card that says put a Tirion Fordring on top of your deck, this card is still unplayable.

...

Quote from RavenDrinkingBeer >>

 Top decking a river croc can loose you the game. If you noticed, most 1-2 drops are value based now and not tempo based. Look at all the 1-3 drops that let you discover a card, or add a card to your hand. You can top deck those and find something you need and not be so far behind. But if you topdeck a 2/3 in constructed, when you needed more stats/board-impact, you did just lose the game. Although, warlock does have the ability to draw cards with his hero power so value/discover isn't needed. However, that's a tempo and HP loss as they need to spend 2 mana AND 2 HP to draw a card beyond the shitty 2/3 that they top decked.

Realistic combos in wild:

Brann + this + panda + this + shadowstep + this = easily 4 - 8 cards burnt, depending on how long your brann can last. Is this good or is this good?

Quote from Team_2Plus3 >>

Realistic combos in wild:

Brann + this + panda + this + shadowstep + this = easily 4 - 8 cards burnt, depending on how long your brann can last. Is this good or is this good?

Quote from Team_2Plus3 >>

Realistic combos in wild:

Brann + this + panda + this + shadowstep + this = easily 4 - 8 cards burnt, depending on how long your brann can last. Is this good or is this good?

Let's say your opponent has 15 cards left in his deck and needs to draw a specific card to combo off / win.

By playing this you have a 1/15 chance to deny the card and 14/15 chance to bring your opponent closer to drawing it.

This is a statistically awful battlecry effect. Yet people will play it and remember only the one in a million games it won them.