I still can't believe people are still arguing about this one. If it read: Discard the top 3 cards of the opponents deck, they would still tell you its useless. In decks that this is supposed to be going into (control) the card counts get pretty low and you deny the person 1 extra thing to throw at you. It does something for sure, and its pretty sad that people think its 100% useless.
It sure isn't meta defining and its pretty niche, but people will use it for the troll value, especially if the card is shown.
I still can't believe people are still arguing about this one. If it read: Discard the top 3 cards of the opponents deck, they would still tell you its useless. In decks that this is supposed to be going into (control) the card counts get pretty low and you deny the person 1 extra thing to throw at you. It does something for sure, and its pretty sad that people think its 100% useless.
It sure isn't meta defining and its pretty niche, but people will use it for the troll value, especially if the card is shown.
If it discarded 3 cards, it'd be a pretty nuts start to a reasonable deck. If you burn 6 cards in total, the likelihood you reach fatigue is much much higher and comboing with cards like bran and brewmaters could easily burn about half a deck. THAT would be a card. This is just a card that can screw up tutors and gives you information on what your opponent can and cannot do.
I still can't believe people are still arguing about this one. If it read: Discard the top 3 cards of the opponents deck, they would still tell you its useless. In decks that this is supposed to be going into (control) the card counts get pretty low and you deny the person 1 extra thing to throw at you. It does something for sure, and its pretty sad that people think its 100% useless.
It sure isn't meta defining and its pretty niche, but people will use it for the troll value, especially if the card is shown.
Now hold up. Everyone I read who said this is basicly a River Crocolisk also said "Except when the game goes to fatigue." Thing is, that doesn't happen that often at all at the moment. And you have to wonder if giving up a card slot to remove a card from the opponent is doing enough. (in control vs control a 2/3 body hardly means anything)
Example: you play this and your opponent plays a different value card instead. AT BEST you remove that value card. But even still, all you really "gained" over your opponent was a 2/3 (not relevant) and an extra tick on the fatigue clock (can be a lot more relevant.) Remember that this is a warlock card though, and you're still likely to reach fatigue before your opponent.
If this removed 3 cards, hell yes that would be good! It would be 3 times more effective in the cases where it would be effective. One card would get rid of three cards, so it would not be 1 for 1 anymore. It would still be a meta-dependent card, but at least it would generate actual value in the long run.
I still can't believe people are still arguing about this one. If it read: Discard the top 3 cards of the opponents deck, they would still tell you its useless. In decks that this is supposed to be going into (control) the card counts get pretty low and you deny the person 1 extra thing to throw at you. It does something for sure, and its pretty sad that people think its 100% useless.
It sure isn't meta defining and its pretty niche, but people will use it for the troll value, especially if the card is shown.
This is just wrong though. If it discarded 3 cards it'd actually be useful because removing 20% of your opponents deck has value - it pushes them a hell of a lot closer to fatigue, you know, the ONE SITUATION this card is good.
Unless you go to fatigue you don't deny your opponent anything, they just draw another card instead.
Note that if your opponent wasn't going to go to fatigue then removing 6 cards from their deck is still bloody useless. Pretending otherwise shows an inherent lack of understanding of how Hearthstone and statistics function.
Not even an aggro card in the slightest so not sure what that's meant to mean. That said it's not a control or midrange card either...it's just a bad card. Can't leave this thread alone, need people to understand why they're so unbelivably wrong... it's a sickness really.
"Meta-Defining! 39.9%"
I mean, come on guys. Just sit down and think about what the card actually does.
Meanwhile the MTG community is currently using this very thread to discredit the entire HS community.
I've never been a MTG player, but I wonder if when Millstone was first introduced or viable if people had the same overreactions and now that they're so used to it, it's less of a big deal? Give it a few expansions and I'm sure people will look back on this card and realise they massively overrated the effect it has.
It's a common mistakes among newbs, but they general when the fallacy is explained to them they understand it. Magic also has much more powerful mill cards (like mill 10 cards for 2 mana) and even cards that you choose a specific card and remove all copies of it from the game but such cards don't see almost no competitive play outside of mill decks.
Magic also has card which let you look at your opponents hand and choose a card for them to discard. While some of them are good none of them are good and they are rarely game winning on their own.
Saying RNG isn't detracting from skill in hearthstone, won't convince anyone it's a good idea. It just shows your too stupid to understand the basics principles of good game design.
I still can't believe people are still arguing about this one. If it read: Discard the top 3 cards of the opponents deck, they would still tell you its useless. In decks that this is supposed to be going into (control) the card counts get pretty low and you deny the person 1 extra thing to throw at you. It does something for sure, and its pretty sad that people think its 100% useless.
It sure isn't meta defining and its pretty niche, but people will use it for the troll value, especially if the card is shown.
This is just wrong though. If it discarded 3 cards it'd actually be useful because removing 20% of your opponents deck has value - it pushes them a hell of a lot closer to fatigue, you know, the ONE SITUATION this card is good.
Unless you go to fatigue you don't deny your opponent anything, they just draw another card instead.
^This. Fatigue's effectiveness can be conceptualized as having a threshold. If you pass this threshold (actually GO to fatigue), then it is an exceedingly powerful effect. If you do not reach this threshold, however, then milling any number of cards over a continuum of games literally has no statistical value. If this was a Warrior/Rogue card, I would say it is playable and could one day even me really good given future cards. In Warlock, however, this card will never see play as Warlock's very hero power has anti-synergy with trying to play a drawn out mill game.
TLDR; It is highly unlikely that a competitive Warlock Mill deck will ever materialize, so this card is essentially a vanilla minion over a continuum of several million games (which is the proper way to value all cards, not just based on one time you get lucky).
I still can't believe people are still arguing about this one. If it read: Discard the top 3 cards of the opponents deck, they would still tell you its useless. In decks that this is supposed to be going into (control) the card counts get pretty low and you deny the person 1 extra thing to throw at you. It does something for sure, and its pretty sad that people think its 100% useless.
It sure isn't meta defining and its pretty niche, but people will use it for the troll value, especially if the card is shown.
If it discarded 3 cards, it'd be a pretty nuts start to a reasonable deck. If you burn 6 cards in total, the likelihood you reach fatigue is much much higher and comboing with cards like bran and brewmaters could easily burn about half a deck. THAT would be a card. This is just a card that can screw up tutors and gives you information on what your opponent can and cannot do.
Yes. By itself it's really nothing. If it were "remove three" OR there were similar tools available then you might be able to have an impact.
Imagine if this were in a wild rogue deck and you could bounce it a few times and double the battlecry with Brann. Now you have something really capable of making an impact.
This comment will be pretty long, but I encourage all to read it because I am confident it will illustrate what people mean when they say that this card does nothing until fatigue. Please read all the way through, because the second half addresses some confusion I think people are having. Thinking of it kind of like a math equation is appropriate when talking about the value of a card, so here it goes.
As hearthstone currently stands, there is nothing in the game that messes with the order of your deck; Nothing that organizes it. And so what I think most of us can agree on is that when you draw the top card in your hearthstone deck, you are drawing a random card from your deck. So the “top card” of the deck is the exact same thing as “a random card” from the deck.
Top card = Random card
Now the same can be said for any card in your deck. The deck size slowly gets smaller as you draw, but no matter if it is the 2nd from the top, 5th from the top, middle, or bottom card of the deck, it is a random card in the deck. In the case of the “bottom card”, it is the same as a “random card” once again.
Random card = Bottom card . . . Therefore,
Top card = Random card = Bottom card, and therefore . . .
Top card = Bottom card. And in terms of value, they are indeed equal. No difference.
Value in hearthstone occurs when you affect an available resource (cards in hand or on board), and Gnomeferatu hasn’t affected an available resource until the victim of the battlecry takes that first fatigue damage, because that is when the victim’s hand size has decreased (they would’ve drawn a card, but they didn’t because Gnomeferatu removed a card from the deck). The only other impact Gnomeferatu has on the game, is the information given, which is not the same as value. When gnomeferatu removes a card from “the top” of the opponent’s deck, both players know that copy of that card will not be drawn this game
Now, this is not to say there is no difference at all between “the top” and “the bottom” of the deck. Heck, they are two different words meaning the opposite thing right? And there is a difference. Some people have called it psychological, but I think it is best described as Interpretive. And this card’s perceived impact on the game does vary, depending on how you interpret it. Remember when reading the list below that the three options have the exact same real impact on the game, as stated above. The value generated is the same, and the information received by both players is the same. The three ways to interpret Gnomeferatu’s battlecry are:
A) Remove the top card of your opponent’s deck.
“Duh! That’s literally what it says!” If you interpret it this way, it gives the battlecry the greatest perceived impact on the game. “I would’ve drawn that card next turn;” Which if you didn’t want the card you sigh with relief, and if you wanted it, you start eating your hands.
B) Remove a random card in your opponent’s deck
In this case, the perceived impact is much less than interpretation A, however still significant. Basically, removing a random card in the deck is increasing the odds that you will draw everything else, except of course for the card removed. That’s now 0 percent.
C) Remove the bottom card of the deck
In this case, the perceived impact is nothing, until the person reaches fatigue, because that is when they would’ve drawn the bottom card in their deck.
Technically, you can choose whichever interpretation you like, and technically speaking you’re not wrong. In terms of actual game impact, each interpretation is the same. However, only one is coherent with the actual value generated by the card, and that is interpretation C.
Now there are exceptions to this of course. If a card was released that affected deck order, this would alter if that card was in the game. An exception that is currently in the game is “tutor” battlecries like Arcanologist or the new Stitched Tracker for hunters. In the case where you remove the last secret in your opponent's deck, and then they play arcanologist, the value is generated when they play arcanologist. Or you can force them to play something else because of it.
Also, on a side note to clarify, in my first post on this thread I put in parentheses that if you get lucky and remove a copy of a card that the opponent can’t win without under any circumstance, that Gnomeferatu did something before fatigue. That was definitely wrong though. As shown above, removing a random card is the same as removing the bottom. So if you did, the battlecry still wouldn’t have generated value until the last card was drawn.
Thank you for reading the whole thing and I hope this has helped.
Value in hearthstone occurs when you affect an available resource (cards in hand or on board), and Gnomeferatu hasn’t affected an available resource until the victim of the battlecry takes that first fatigue damage, because that is when the victim’s hand size has decreased (they would’ve drawn a card, but they didn’t because Gnomeferatu removed a card from the deck). The only other impact Gnomeferatu has on the game, is the information given, which is not the same as value.
That is incorrect. Play some Renolock and wait until a Gnomeferatu removes your Reno. Then come back and tell me if the only impact Gnomeferatu had in this game was fatigue + information given.
I mostly agree with the rest of your post. But this is bullshit and people need to understand it very clearly, Gnomeferafu is a shit card but it WILL ruin some games that didn't go to fatigue.
Also, on a side note to clarify, in my first post on this thread I put in parentheses that if you get lucky and remove a copy of a card that the opponent can’t win without under any circumstance, that Gnomeferatu did something before fatigue. That was definitely wrong though. As shown above, removing a random card is the same as removing the bottom. So if you did, the battlecry still wouldn’t have generated value until the last card was drawn.
You are assuming the removed card would have been the last card drawn anyway, and this is not correct either. It COULD have been the last card drawn. Maybe not. MOST LIKELY not. Since every turn the opponent would get a certain % chance to draw it (increasing every turn), if it was still in your deck, as opposed to a 0% chance to draw it for the rest of the game, if gnomeferatu removes it. Because every turn, as you said yourself, you draw a RANDOM card from your deck.
NOOO start getting it, please! A reno not in your hand is a reno you have not drawn is a reno you cannot play is a reno you have not lost.
Until fatigue.
Gah.
EDIT: you know what, screw it. If other people want to give this card more value than it actually has, I'm going to let them from now on. At least I've tried and I know not to get tilted by this card. I guess most people just draw the cards they need all the time exactly when they need them. I sure don't. I still much rather know what cards I will not draw and play around it than wait for that N'zoth that never comes before I die.
That is incorrect. Play some Renolock and wait until a Gnomeferatu removes your Reno. Then come back and tell me if the only impact Gnomeferatu had in this game was fatigue + information given.
I mostly agree with the rest of your post. But this is bullshit and people need to understand it very clearly, Gnomeferafu is a shit card but it WILL ruin some games that didn't go to fatigue.
You are assuming the removed card would have been the last card drawn anyway, and this is not correct either. It COULD have been the last card drawn. Maybe not. MOST LIKELY not. Since every turn the opponent would get a certain % chance to draw it (increasing every turn), if it was still in your deck, as opposed to a 0% chance to draw it for the rest of the game, if gnomeferatu removes it. Because every turn, as you said yourself, you draw a RANDOM card from your deck.
Again like I said in my post, the only difference between what your saying and what I'm saying is the perceived impact of Gnomeferatu's battlecry. I'm saying it was on the bottom, your saying its a random card. The actual in game impact is the same in both cases. We both will know that reno will not be drawn this game, and until fatigue, the battlecry has not impacted our hand or the board.
You are right however that it will ruin games that didn't go to fatigue. It will ruin the games for players who didn't interpret it as the bottom card of the deck, and they might concede. But again, it actually did the same thing either way.
I wonder what Blizzard would say about the cards design. Was it there intention to give this card a "nothing battlecry" if indeed the arguing logic above is true? A card that essentially does nothing to the opponents deck until fatigue? I'd like to see their side of design iterations on it.
Do people get that a chance to remove any card is equal to a chance that you will make your opponent draw it? I guess you "can't see" second effect so it's beyond most people imagination.
Again like I said in my post, the only difference between what your saying and what I'm saying is the perceived impact of Gnomeferatu's battlecry. I'm saying it was on the bottom, your saying its a random card. The actual in game impact is the same in both cases.
So there is no difference between an increasingly higher chance every turn to draw a card in your deck, and a 0% chance to draw said card because it has been removed.
Are you retarded ? Not trying to be offensive (really not !). Bust you must be retarded somehow.
Ask a friend to play mill rogue against you. You'll see that many times you'll lose the game because you lacked key cards that he milled, not because you got to fatigue.
NOOO start getting it, please! A reno not in your hand is a reno you have not drawn is a reno you cannot play is a reno you have not lost.
Until fatigue.
A reno not in my hand is a reno that I CAN POTENTIALLY DRAW AT THE START OF EACH TURN, until i EVENTUALLY draw it. Fatigue has nothing to do with this.
A reno that has been removed from my deck is a reno THAT I CAN NEVER DRAW DURING THAT GAME, BECAUSE I LOST IT. Fatigue has nothing to do with this.
Seriously MTG freaks, stop this nonsense trolling, have you ever played with mill rogue ? Against mill rogue ? you SHOULD KNOW by now that the impact of a missing key card in your deck is real and does occur before fatigue starts.
Most pros that reviewed this card agree with me by the way. Gnoferatu is a trash card but can and will destroy some opponents because it removed the card they needed, this is more relevant than the fatigue implications of this card.
Mill rogue is one of my favourite wild decks :) I have played it a lot. Also don't mind playing against it. Denying people any card in that deck is very good, but the deck is all about denying your opponent a good portion of the value of their deck. Just count the number of cards that get removed by milling, returning cards to a full hand etc, and you'll see that number is quite a bit higher than 2, and that every card that does these things has more functions than just burning a card . That Tyrion you lost may feel like a real bummer, but those other 10+ cards you lost might have had a little impact as well. All of this matters because you went to fatigue and can no longer draw new cards to save you from fatigue damage or end the game in time.
I have a question. What if this card did not reveal what card you lost. The game remembers what card it was that you lost, you just can't see it. It could be Reno, it could also be something else. But the game picks a card from the deck and you can no longer draw it.
Would you feel the same about this card? Or would it feel like Reno was just somewhere at the bottom of your deck?
I wonder what Blizzard would say about the cards design. Was it there intention to give this card a "nothing battlecry" if indeed the arguing logic above is true? A card that essentially does nothing to the opponents deck until fatigue? I'd like to see their side of design iterations on it.
I'm not saying it does nothing to your opponents deck until fatigue. I'm saying right now in hearthstone, doing gnomeferatu's battlecry to your opponent's deck does nothing but give both players information, until fatigue.
So the new meta will be combo decks and slightly less good decks that destroy said combo decks... at least itll be a new kind of frustration. Honestly I wasnt playing during "quest" meta so evolving hero powers and blocking hero powers should be a "fun" side agenda to attempt to pull off.
More and more I feel like Hearthstone is all about pulling off that once in a million year RNG stunt and then spending the next 40 failed tries enjoying that one time the game allowed it...
I hate the card but i feel like i will definitely be using it/ forced to use it. pretty incredible effect honestly
So there is no difference between an increasingly higher chance every turn to draw a card in your deck, and a 0% chance to draw said card because it has been removed.
Are you retarded ? Not trying to be offensive (really not !). Bust you must be retarded somehow.
Ask a friend to play mill rogue against you. You'll see that many times you'll lose the game because you lacked key cards that he milled, not because you got to fatigue.
A reno not in my hand is a reno that I CAN POTENTIALLY DRAW AT THE START OF EACH TURN, until i EVENTUALLY draw it. Fatigue has nothing to do with this.
A reno that has been removed from my deck is a reno THAT I CAN NEVER DRAW DURING THAT GAME, BECAUSE I LOST IT. Fatigue has nothing to do with this.
Seriously MTG freaks, stop this nonsense trolling, have you ever played with mill rogue ? Against mill rogue ? you SHOULD KNOW by now that the impact of a missing key card in your deck is real and does occur before fatigue starts.
Most pros that reviewed this card agree with me by the way. Gnoferatu is a trash card but can and will destroy some opponents because it removed the card they needed, this is more relevant than the fatigue implication of this card, which is a totally different implication.
This is why I claim right here right now, that Gnomeferatu is going to be irrelevant in ladder, but fucking cancer in tournaments. Mark my words and quote me in a couple months.
When mill rogue mills a card from you by overdrawing you, it is doing something entirely different. At that point the card is no longer a random card in your deck. It is a card that would've been in your hand, but you have too many cards so its gone.
Not trying to tilt you or anything but I am right on this one. If you think a random card in your deck in hearthstone right now, is different than the bottom card, in terms of value, it is like saying 2+2 is not the same value as 4 because it is worded differently. I know they aren't semantically, or literally the same thing, but in terms of quantifying what this card's battlecry does in any way, they are the same thing.
Remember, once you hit fatigue it all goes out the window and the battlecry literally killed a card, but until then, nothing but information. Also worth noting that some information is devastating to hear, but still aint value.
I was gonna say on the plus side that you think this card sucks, but youre' saying now its gonna have a tournament impact. No chance in hell until something comes out to differentiate between the top card, bottom card, and random card in your deck. Or a warlock strategy that tries to go to fatigue becomes viable, then this might see play. In any case, this will all be realized soon enough, so I hope your not getting too upset over this. Its not exactly an intuitive concept.
I have a question. What if this card did not reveal what card you lost. The game remembers what card it was that you lost, you just can't see it. It could be Reno, it could also be something else. But the game picks a card from the deck and you can no longer draw it.
Would you feel the same about this card? Or would it feel like Reno was just somewhere at the bottom of your deck?
I don't f*cking care about what it feels like, I care about what it actually does...
I don't need to see that it is Reno. IF it is Reno, my odds of winning the game decreased tremendously, I just won't know it (and I won't know what missing card I should play around, so that decreases my odds even more). I won't FEEL that my odds of winning decreased, they will decrease for REAL. IF it's something else than Reno, something that I don't need for the matchup, then I'll get closer to Reno and my odds of winning increased very slighly. I does not matter what I feel about it.
Didn't read your mill rogue part, because I know how to play mill rogue, you missed my point (on purpose).
Just like you don't need to see what card you will draw last this game. IF it is Reno, your odds of winning the game decreased tremendously, you just won't know it. (And you won't know what bottom card you should play around, so that decreases your odds even more.) You won't FEEL that your odds of winning decreased, they will decrease for REAL. IF it's something else than Reno, something that you don't need for the matchup, then you are in fact closer to Reno and your odds of winning increased very slightly.
I have a question. What if this card did not reveal what card you lost. The game remembers what card it was that you lost, you just can't see it. It could be Reno, it could also be something else. But the game picks a card from the deck and you can no longer draw it.
Would you feel the same about this card? Or would it feel like Reno was just somewhere at the bottom of your deck?
I don't f*cking care about what it feels like, I care about what it actually does...
I don't need to see that it is Reno. IF it is Reno, my odds of winning the game decreased tremendously, I just won't know it (and I won't know what missing card I should play around, so that decreases my odds even more). I won't FEEL that my odds of winning decreased, they will decrease for REAL. IF it's something else than Reno, something that I don't need for the matchup, then I'll get closer to Reno and my odds of winning increased very slighly. I does not matter what I feel about it.
Didn't read your mill rogue part, because I know how to play mill rogue, you missed my point (on purpose).
Just like you don't need to see what card you will draw last this game. IF it is Reno, your odds of winning the game decreased tremendously, you just won't know it. (And you won't know what bottom card you should play around, so that decreases your odds even more.) You won't FEEL that your odds of winning decreased, they will decrease for REAL. IF it's something else than Reno, something that you don't need for the matchup, then you are in fact closer to Reno and your odds of winning increased very slightly.
Mhm that's the only reason people are hyping the card. If this destroyed the "top" card in your deck and DIDN'T show it I bet nobody would actually care about it, but seeing the visual of that Reno disappearing (even if in reality it's no different to it being on the bottom of your deck and never drawn) is what triggers people.
There is no "bottom card" in hearthstone. How could "a random card" be the same as something that does not exist ? I don't get your point. A random card in you deck is a random card in your deck, and you can draw any given card in your deck at the start of each turn. Aaaah whatever, let's just agree to disagree, this card won't see any constructed play anyway and we will never know who was right cause I don't even watch tournaments. But I am right on this one ;).
I now feel a compulsive need to transport you and I to a pub together, where we drink beer and share battle-of-wit stories.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I still can't believe people are still arguing about this one. If it read: Discard the top 3 cards of the opponents deck, they would still tell you its useless. In decks that this is supposed to be going into (control) the card counts get pretty low and you deny the person 1 extra thing to throw at you. It does something for sure, and its pretty sad that people think its 100% useless.
It sure isn't meta defining and its pretty niche, but people will use it for the troll value, especially if the card is shown.
Saying RNG isn't detracting from skill in hearthstone, won't convince anyone it's a good idea. It just shows your too stupid to understand the basics principles of good game design.
this card is better off being a rogue deck to make mill rogue more OP
SHADOW PRIEST FTW!!
This comment will be pretty long, but I encourage all to read it because I am confident it will illustrate what people mean when they say that this card does nothing until fatigue. Please read all the way through, because the second half addresses some confusion I think people are having. Thinking of it kind of like a math equation is appropriate when talking about the value of a card, so here it goes.
As hearthstone currently stands, there is nothing in the game that messes with the order of your deck; Nothing that organizes it. And so what I think most of us can agree on is that when you draw the top card in your hearthstone deck, you are drawing a random card from your deck. So the “top card” of the deck is the exact same thing as “a random card” from the deck.
Top card = Random card
Now the same can be said for any card in your deck. The deck size slowly gets smaller as you draw, but no matter if it is the 2nd from the top, 5th from the top, middle, or bottom card of the deck, it is a random card in the deck. In the case of the “bottom card”, it is the same as a “random card” once again.
Random card = Bottom card . . . Therefore,
Top card = Random card = Bottom card, and therefore . . .
Top card = Bottom card. And in terms of value, they are indeed equal. No difference.
Value in hearthstone occurs when you affect an available resource (cards in hand or on board), and Gnomeferatu hasn’t affected an available resource until the victim of the battlecry takes that first fatigue damage, because that is when the victim’s hand size has decreased (they would’ve drawn a card, but they didn’t because Gnomeferatu removed a card from the deck). The only other impact Gnomeferatu has on the game, is the information given, which is not the same as value. When gnomeferatu removes a card from “the top” of the opponent’s deck, both players know that copy of that card will not be drawn this game
Now, this is not to say there is no difference at all between “the top” and “the bottom” of the deck. Heck, they are two different words meaning the opposite thing right? And there is a difference. Some people have called it psychological, but I think it is best described as Interpretive. And this card’s perceived impact on the game does vary, depending on how you interpret it. Remember when reading the list below that the three options have the exact same real impact on the game, as stated above. The value generated is the same, and the information received by both players is the same. The three ways to interpret Gnomeferatu’s battlecry are:
“Duh! That’s literally what it says!” If you interpret it this way, it gives the battlecry the greatest perceived impact on the game. “I would’ve drawn that card next turn;” Which if you didn’t want the card you sigh with relief, and if you wanted it, you start eating your hands.
In this case, the perceived impact is much less than interpretation A, however still significant. Basically, removing a random card in the deck is increasing the odds that you will draw everything else, except of course for the card removed. That’s now 0 percent.
In this case, the perceived impact is nothing, until the person reaches fatigue, because that is when they would’ve drawn the bottom card in their deck.
Technically, you can choose whichever interpretation you like, and technically speaking you’re not wrong. In terms of actual game impact, each interpretation is the same. However, only one is coherent with the actual value generated by the card, and that is interpretation C.
Now there are exceptions to this of course. If a card was released that affected deck order, this would alter if that card was in the game. An exception that is currently in the game is “tutor” battlecries like Arcanologist or the new Stitched Tracker for hunters. In the case where you remove the last secret in your opponent's deck, and then they play arcanologist, the value is generated when they play arcanologist. Or you can force them to play something else because of it.
Also, on a side note to clarify, in my first post on this thread I put in parentheses that if you get lucky and remove a copy of a card that the opponent can’t win without under any circumstance, that Gnomeferatu did something before fatigue. That was definitely wrong though. As shown above, removing a random card is the same as removing the bottom. So if you did, the battlecry still wouldn’t have generated value until the last card was drawn.
Thank you for reading the whole thing and I hope this has helped.
I wonder what Blizzard would say about the cards design. Was it there intention to give this card a "nothing battlecry" if indeed the arguing logic above is true? A card that essentially does nothing to the opponents deck until fatigue? I'd like to see their side of design iterations on it.
Do people get that a chance to remove any card is equal to a chance that you will make your opponent draw it? I guess you "can't see" second effect so it's beyond most people imagination.
So the new meta will be combo decks and slightly less good decks that destroy said combo decks... at least itll be a new kind of frustration. Honestly I wasnt playing during "quest" meta so evolving hero powers and blocking hero powers should be a "fun" side agenda to attempt to pull off.
More and more I feel like Hearthstone is all about pulling off that once in a million year RNG stunt and then spending the next 40 failed tries enjoying that one time the game allowed it...
I hate the card but i feel like i will definitely be using it/ forced to use it. pretty incredible effect honestly
If you can't beat them, join them