This just represents what Warlock has become. Our 2 drop used to be Dark Peddler. So much value and skill involed in the decisicion. Now we've sunk to Gnomeferatu. Literally 2 mana do nothing.
What stats are you drawing from that lead to your conclusions? Give me some actual data rather than conjecture that justifies your stance as being more informed/valid than the rest of us?
It's the probability portion of the stats course that is being referred to. Anyone who have taken such a course knows that this card is just as impactful if it says remove the bottom card of your opponent's deck. This is not a statistical argument, but a mathematical one.
I totally understand what you both are basing your claim on - some spurious and vague reliance on the assumed infallibility of maths - I just don't understand why it's relevant WHERE the card that's removed is in your deck. You say that removing a card from a deck that doesn't go to fatigue is the same as having no effect at all but that's just faulty logic. Some other people have mentioned the intelligence benefit of this card - learning about WHAT you're playing on turn 2 is okay, sure, but can I reword why I think this card is good and will be used in Warlock decks, it may even be a key piece of an archetype we haven't strictly seen yet in Hearthstone.
When you play this on turn 2 or turn 1 with coin you've removed a card they could have drawn/relied on, whether or not that's a clutch piece of a combo is moot, especially for 2 mana. Why would Team 5 make a card that can reliably win games for 2 mana? WHERE in your opponent's deck the card is is irrelevant because you are, for 2 mana on a perfectly acceptable body messing with your opponent's options. It just so happens to be the next draw they would have had next turn. Sure, you're thinning your opponent's deck but let's be honest, this is Warlock, when have they cared about that? How is DyingAtheist's argument any different to saying that you shouldn't put cards in your deck that you might not draw because it's like not having them at all anyway? Having 20 cards would be better than having 30 cards? Really?
DyingAtheist thinks that by virtue of 'data' (which in this case is the assumption that the effect is irrelevant based on what I wrote above) his analysis is infallible and anybody that thinks this card is good is just stupid for not relying on data (whatever we're talking about here I have no idea because I see no data sets to back up the claim and I'm sure that Team 5 could do with this incredible insight)
Anyway, just so I understand your signature clearly:
People who don't play Pirate Warrior because it's toxic and requires no real interaction with the nuanced complexities of the game are worse than people that play Pirate Warrior because it's toxic and requires no real interaction with the nuanced complexities of the game?
I totally understand what you both are basing your claim on - some spurious and vague reliance on the assumed infallibility of maths - I just don't understand why it's relevant WHERE the card that's removed is in your deck. You say that removing a card from a deck that doesn't go to fatigue is the same as having no effect at all but that's just faulty logic. Some other people have mentioned the intelligence benefit of this card - learning about WHAT you're playing on turn 2 is okay, sure, but can I reword why I think this card is good and will be used in Warlock decks, it may even be a key piece of an archetype we haven't strictly seen yet in Hearthstone.
The point is, where it is removed doesn't matter, since Hearthstone does not have deck order manipulation mechanics. You can do a bjiection between all possible deck orders where a card X is on top and a card X at the bottom, or even if it is a random card, if you want to be rigourous. So, we can and should assume that it is the bottom card, as this assumption generates the least emotional impact, and least prone to magical thinking where you assumed that you can reliably remove a key piece that they can draw, etc. Plus, it simplifies all the math that you have to do.
If upon fully accepting this conclusion, that you think removing the bottom card of a deck makes Gnomeferatu good, that's your opinion, one that I disagree on. (viewing your opponent's bottom card, and milling it if they almost hit fatigue, is simply just not good enough) But the moment that you or anybody think of this card as any more than removing the last card from your opponent's deck, that's when the math courses need to happen.
I totally understand what you both are basing your claim on - some spurious and vague reliance on the assumed infallibility of maths - I just don't understand why it's relevant WHERE the card that's removed is in your deck. You say that removing a card from a deck that doesn't go to fatigue is the same as having no effect at all but that's just faulty logic. Some other people have mentioned the intelligence benefit of this card - learning about WHAT you're playing on turn 2 is okay, sure, but can I reword why I think this card is good and will be used in Warlock decks, it may even be a key piece of an archetype we haven't strictly seen yet in Hearthstone.
If upon fully accepting this conclusion, that you think removing the bottom card of a deck makes Gnomeferatu good, that's your opinion, one that I disagree on.
Can we dispense with all the pretense (you haven't addressed any of my points) and accept that it comes down to this, THEN read what I said about its effect and try again?
What stats are you drawing from that lead to your conclusions? Give me some actual data rather than conjecture that justifies your stance as being more informed/valid than the rest of us?
It's the probability portion of the stats course that is being referred to. Anyone who have taken such a course knows that this card is just as impactful if it says remove the bottom card of your opponent's deck. This is not a statistical argument, but a mathematical one.
I totally understand what you both are basing your claim on - some spurious and vague reliance on the assumed infallibility of maths - I just don't understand why it's relevant WHERE the card that's removed is in your deck. You say that removing a card from a deck that doesn't go to fatigue is the same as having no effect at all but that's just faulty logic. Some other people have mentioned the intelligence benefit of this card - learning about WHAT you're playing on turn 2 is okay, sure, but can I reword why I think this card is good and will be used in Warlock decks, it may even be a key piece of an archetype we haven't strictly seen yet in Hearthstone.
When you play this on turn 2 or turn 1 with coin you've removed a card they could have drawn/relied on, whether or not that's a clutch piece of a combo is moot, especially for 2 mana. Why would Team 5 make a card that can reliably win games for 2 mana? WHERE in your opponent's deck the card is is irrelevant because you are, for 2 mana on a perfectly acceptable body messing with your opponent's options. It just so happens to be the next draw they would have had next turn. Sure, you're thinning your opponent's deck but let's be honest, this is Warlock, when have they cared about that? How is DyingAtheist's argument any different to saying that you shouldn't put cards in your deck that you might not draw because it's like not having them at all anyway? Having 20 cards would be better than having 30 cards? Really?
DyingAtheist thinks that by virtue of 'data' (which in this case is the assumption that the effect is irrelevant based on what I wrote above) his analysis is infallible and anybody that thinks this card is good is just stupid for not relying on data (whatever we're talking about here I have no idea because I see no data sets to back up the claim and I'm sure that Team 5 could do with this incredible insight)
Anyway, just so I understand your signature clearly:
People who don't play Pirate Warrior because it's toxic and requires no real interaction with the nuanced complexities of the game are worse than people that play Pirate Warrior because it's toxic and requires no real interaction with the nuanced complexities of the game?
Back when I was playing MTG and people started making their own rules there was a little in house format called death decks. They were only 40 cards instead of 60. They were called such because they were able to cut out most of the chaff then ended up in regular 60 card decks. These decks were far faster at accomplishing the point of the deck. Mostly aggro of some type. Having less cards can actually make the deck more consistent and get you to where you want to go faster because you are drawing less filler. I bet many aggro decks would do this in hearthstone if they could.
Also in MTG this sort of mill mechanic was actually very successful. However the biggest reason for this was because Millstone (the card responsible for this tactic) could be triggered every turn. Further more you could mill your opponents lands. The resource the needed to play cards. That doesn't exist here and the effect is very difficult to repeatedly produce in hearthstone. Few decks are going to shit the bed and just be awful over 1-2 cards. That is why gnomefertau isn't good. In reality you needed multiple millstones hitting every turn before it worked and it didn't always work then because you didn't always mill the cards you wanted. With the far more limited effect here you are far less likely to hit something important or crippling.
Honestly if you could look at their next card then choose to leave it or move it to the bottom then the card would be better and far more interesting. This mechanic also was in magic and was actually superior. Though again this was partly because you could move land cards to the bottom and mana starve people.
Lastly, Howlfiend and Coldlight Oracle are not good cards to run together. Discard, mill and deck manipulation (and graveyard) was my main stay in MTG and emptying someones hand just to fill it back up isn't good. Doing it in reverse sounds good in theory, filling up their hand to make them discard it, however this is a very difficult combo to set up. You can't do it in one turn and that is why it's not that great. You have to do it over multiple turns, turns where your opponent is building board, SMOrcing your face or burning you down. Further more even doing it over the course of two turns is still very expensive and at minimum will require 8 mana and a lucky board state. Something like, Coldlight Oracle the turn before (hopefully they don't use the cards you drew for them) then something like Forbidden Ritual. Next turn Howlfiend > Treachery > run your 1/1s into Howlfiend. You could also try to use defile on the same turn you Howlfiend and Treachery if they board state is favorable for it instead of trying to set up Forbidden Ritual the turn before.. (this is where i got 8 mana from).
The one exception to all of this is that you could howlfiend, treachery, Coldlight Oracle, the coin, defile IF the board state is set up by your opponent for defile to go all the way through. But again the issues with these shenanigans is that if you use cold light it is to fill your opponents hand to force the mill. You make them discard their hand then it's counter intuitive to milling them through a forced full hand. These cards essentially wouldn't go into the same deck. Now if you wanted to use Fel Reaver that would work better. In fel reavers case it's still a two turn set up and they get a turn to mill you first. Not so great.
if you want to target combo-decks (and that's the only reason you would play this card) you need to go fo the cards in your oponents hand, that's the place where you most likely find the combo pieces. apart from dirty rat, is see far more potential in treachery --> howlfiend --> run some crapminions into it than gnomeferatu. voted bad.
warlock just can't run a mill-deck similar to what we have seen so far in hearthstone, the hero-power has massive anti-synergie with that strategy. the only way is exactly targeting the hand-cards.
I'm going to hate this card and Skulking Geist just as much as I hated Mill Rogue/Druid. Copy one of my spells, steal one of my minions (because once it's on the board, that's the risk I take for playing it), sure, because that doesn't take away from my deck, but this is just. No Blizzard. Forcing me into card draw that I may not want is annoying enough, but we craft our decks very specifically and to be able to remove even one card with no way to stop it from happening is too much. Spells can be countered, deathrattle can be silenced. There are no good specific counters to battlecry effects that don't rely entirely on RNG (Dirty Rat, Ancestor's Call). Whether either this or Skulking Geist see real play or not, it's still going to be stupidly annoying playing against them. And yes, I do understand that a good deck would survive against either of these just fine. It does not mean I have to like what these cards do nor think that this is a good direction to be going in.
Because I'm a bit of a masochist have a Mill Warlock theorycraft:
I'm going to hate this card and Skulking Geist just as much as I hated Mill Rogue/Druid. Copy one of my spells, steal one of my minions (because once it's on the board, that's the risk I take for playing it), sure, because that doesn't take away from my deck, but this is just. No Blizzard. Forcing me into card draw that I may not want is annoying enough, but we craft our decks very specifically and to be able to remove even one card with no way to stop it from happening is too much. Spells can be countered, deathrattle can be silenced. There are no good specific counters to battlecry effects that don't rely entirely on RNG (Dirty Rat, Ancestor's Call). Whether either this or Skulking Geist see real play or not, it's still going to be stupidly annoying playing against them. And yes, I do understand that a good deck would survive against either of these just fine. It does not mean I have to like what these cards do nor think that this is a good direction to be going in.
Because I'm a bit of a masochist have a Mill Warlock theorycraft:
Wanna just play something fun then I like this list by Piloko. I think Fel reaver is a much better fit for mill lock since the anti synergy the warlock hero power has with Coldlight. Don't run coldlight at all. Though for piloko's list I would run gnomeferatu instead of firefly and I would find a place for Howlfiend just to fill out the feel of the deck.
My concern is that they are adding this effect to the game.
You are going to use this card as an example instead of Skulking Geist? Remove a card from the bottom of your opponent's deck isn't unfun. Removing all copies of a specific type of card from both hand and deck, is.
You know, I didn't even see that card lol. Idk what's going on in blizzard's head atm.
My concern is that they are adding this effect to the game.
You are going to use this card as an example instead of Skulking Geist? Remove a card from the bottom of your opponent's deck isn't unfun. Removing all copies of a specific type of card from both hand and deck, is.
You know, I didn't even see that card lol. Idk what's going on in blizzard's head atm.
Boy are you gonna be mad when you see Death Grip...
I don't know why the video link above would convince anyone that hasn't been convinced yet. He makes pretty much the same points that we've already made. But in case it does, there is the link. I think he talks about gnomeferatu at around 4:45.
It's essentially a River Crocolisk, since discarding a card from a deck only really matters in game terms if the game goes to fatigue. We know this from Fel Reaver, or ought to.
However, it's a toxic card, since a discarded card from a deck can only add salt to the game.
I don't know why the video link above would convince anyone that hasn't been convinced yet. He makes pretty much the same points that we've already made. But in case it does, there is the link. I think he talks about gnomeferatu at around 4:45.
You don't play this card for it's quality, you play this card for the tilt and lawls.
It's essentially a River Crocolisk, since discarding a card from a deck only really matters in game terms if the game goes to fatigue. We know this from Fel Reaver, or ought to.
However, it's a toxic card, since a discarded card from a deck can only add salt to the game.
It should not have been printed.
I mean... this is a game where you try to make the opponent lose in order to win. It's a zero sum game, a competitive game. The loser is always going to feel bad and get salty at least a little, unless he's taking a Christian attitude toward it, and the winner might feel negative things too since he's basically crushing his opponent's hopes of winning and destroying the hero and minions representing them.
Discarding from the deck is not really any more toxic to me than having played a minion at a large mana cost and waited for it all game and it just gets hexed or something. Or never getting to play the thing because you get aggro-faced down too fast.
Anyway, I don't see why people should feel bad about being milled a card. It is a fundamental concept that a card milled is just the same as a card on the bottom you will never draw. Of course if your deck is like Exodia mage then that may have been a bit different, but overall I don't see why people should be upset.
And.... who would really use this card, like, for real?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Are you not entertained?! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!"
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity." - Maximus Decimus Meridius
This just represents what Warlock has become. Our 2 drop used to be Dark Peddler. So much value and skill involed in the decisicion. Now we've sunk to Gnomeferatu. Literally 2 mana do nothing.
ITS JUST A CARD
People who don't play Pirate Warrior because it's toxic and requires no real interaction with the nuanced complexities of the game are worse than people that play Pirate Warrior because it's toxic and requires no real interaction with the nuanced complexities of the game?
Is that statement based on data too?
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
if you want to target combo-decks (and that's the only reason you would play this card) you need to go fo the cards in your oponents hand, that's the place where you most likely find the combo pieces. apart from dirty rat, is see far more potential in treachery --> howlfiend --> run some crapminions into it than gnomeferatu. voted bad.
warlock just can't run a mill-deck similar to what we have seen so far in hearthstone, the hero-power has massive anti-synergie with that strategy. the only way is exactly targeting the hand-cards.
I'm going to hate this card and Skulking Geist just as much as I hated Mill Rogue/Druid. Copy one of my spells, steal one of my minions (because once it's on the board, that's the risk I take for playing it), sure, because that doesn't take away from my deck, but this is just. No Blizzard. Forcing me into card draw that I may not want is annoying enough, but we craft our decks very specifically and to be able to remove even one card with no way to stop it from happening is too much. Spells can be countered, deathrattle can be silenced. There are no good specific counters to battlecry effects that don't rely entirely on RNG (Dirty Rat, Ancestor's Call). Whether either this or Skulking Geist see real play or not, it's still going to be stupidly annoying playing against them. And yes, I do understand that a good deck would survive against either of these just fine. It does not mean I have to like what these cards do nor think that this is a good direction to be going in.
Because I'm a bit of a masochist have a Mill Warlock theorycraft:
New DK Heros are so crazy that Warlocks have to be able to have the chance to destroy them :-/
Try out my Resurrect Priest deck!
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/227707-resurrect-priest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjhlryUnEaY
I don't know why the video link above would convince anyone that hasn't been convinced yet. He makes pretty much the same points that we've already made. But in case it does, there is the link. I think he talks about gnomeferatu at around 4:45.
The only reason I am so stressed about this card is that it makes no sense why it isn't a demon!!!
Weak and toxic.
It's essentially a River Crocolisk, since discarding a card from a deck only really matters in game terms if the game goes to fatigue. We know this from Fel Reaver, or ought to.
However, it's a toxic card, since a discarded card from a deck can only add salt to the game.
It should not have been printed.
It's river croc with a downside in most games, this card is awful.
Discarding from the deck is not really any more toxic to me than having played a minion at a large mana cost and waited for it all game and it just gets hexed or something. Or never getting to play the thing because you get aggro-faced down too fast.
What's with the 39+% of meta-defining poll?
Anyway, I don't see why people should feel bad about being milled a card. It is a fundamental concept that a card milled is just the same as a card on the bottom you will never draw. Of course if your deck is like Exodia mage then that may have been a bit different, but overall I don't see why people should be upset.
And.... who would really use this card, like, for real?
"Are you not entertained?! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!"
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity." - Maximus Decimus Meridius