Hearthpwn

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. 

Quote from Rusery >>

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. 

Quote from Rusery >>

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. 

Quote from Rusery >>

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. 

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Quote from Harmonius >>

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

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. 

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Quote from Rusery >>

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 card is better off being a rogue deck to make mill rogue more OP

Quote from notsoclutch >>

Quote from Rusery >>

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.

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 2^nd from the top, 5^th 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:

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.  

Quote from tictactucroc >>

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.

Quote from tictactucroc >>

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.

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.

Quote from tictactucroc >>

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.

Quote from Rusery >>

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. 

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

Quote from tictactucroc >>

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.

Quote from tictactucroc >>

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).

Quote from BrokenCycle >>

Quote from tictactucroc >>

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.

Quote from tictactucroc >>

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 ;).