Hearthpwn

If only I had some small, even tiny, benefit to burning random cards from my deck, e.g. burn 3 cards to gain one mana, or burn 10 cards to draw a card - I'd use it in every.single.game. (that doesn't plan on hitting fatigue of course)

Quote from Excelsion89 >>

The most overrated card in this expansion.

It's funny how you can see a persons understanding of basic mechanics in this game based on his rating here.

Can anyone confirm if the burned card is revealed (think fel reaver)?  Or does it just disappear?

The answer to that has major influence on the "goodness" of this card.  Even though yes that card could have been on the bottom anyhow,  the simple KNOWLEDGE of which card is on the bottom has value.

Something as tame as "I don't have to play around a second frostbolt from hand" can still make the difference in crunch time. 

Tl;dr: knowing which card is burned is more important than the actual destruction of that card.

You can usually determine 70-100% of the cards in someone's deck after a single card is played. I agree the information is valuable, but not enough to justify a vanilla 2/3 in your deck.

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Quote from Syncesta >>

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Just because you kill an Antonidas one game in 30 doesn't make it a good card. It means the other 29 times you've helped your opponent out.

I'll happily destroy one of your cards leaving a 2/3 body for 2 mana compared to trying to fish a minion with Dirty Rat and probably give you the game in the process. I don't care what the card is, because if you've included it in your deck, you've excluded something else for a reason (I'm talking here about the few players that don't copy paste Pirate Warrior)

 

 

 Unless you go to fatigue this means nothing though. You're on about destroying a card I'd find valuable...so what? You don't draw every card in your deck anyway in normal circumstances so let's say on average you draw  20 that means every game you effectively have 10 cards (that I chose at the exclusion of others) that get 'destroyed'. And it means nothing. Destroying a card means nothing unless you go to fatigue. This isn't a guess, this isn't my 'opinion' it is a statistical fact and people arguing otherwise will realise once they actually play with the card. 

Quote from wtk300 >>

Quote from asteroidm >>

Quote from wtk300 >>

Quote from asteroidm >>

Quote from wtk300 >>

So, who wants to argue some more? ;) I claim that whole upside of the card is information, the milling part is irrelevant (until fatigue hits your opponent).

It does not decrease your opponent chance to draw any card.

It does not "break" combos.

But it sure feels like it does destroy combos. What's the catch? The game itself has a way to screw combo decks. If you need two card combo you have to relay on drawing both cards before the game ends. Let's call that probability P1. Now if your opponent plays Gnomeferatu you would expect that probability to go down. But in fact it is exactly the same. Gnomeferatu is not destroying combos, it just gives you information that in this particular game your opponent was on the bad or good side of RNG.

Still not convinced? What if we hide the card that is destroyed from both players. Now the information part is gone, and there is only "milling" effect. Now that you don't know what card is gone you also "feel" that milling was irrelevant (until fatigue hits your opponent).

 

 I will.  Let me do it in proper internet forums style.  

 

WRONG!!1!1!!!1!!.  

 

Seriously though.  This is not entirely, correct.  

Firstly combo draws A LOT.  Them drawing through their deck isn't just common it's practically the purpose.  So a card like this is felt far far more keenly in combo because the purpose of their deck are to draw through their deck to get specific card which might not be there anymore.  Even if you don't hit a combo piece hitting draw can seriously hurt the.  Combo is a type of deck that literally plans on using practically every card at their disposal to get to their combo turn.

Also the power of the effect comes in BOTH being present.  Lets take away the mill part, you just get to look at a random card in your opponents deck...pretty useless.  You add the Mill with the knowledge of knowing what is being milled together and you get something workable. 

 If your opponent doesn't draw the entire deck Gnomeferatu did nothing. It (she?) made your opponent doesn't draw one random card instead of another random card. I have no clue how you still don't get it.

Also Gnomeferatu's effect is not equivalent to looking at random card. It's equivalent to looking at the last card in your opponents deck. If the game does not go to fatigue looking at the last card of your opponents deck is the same as looking at the top card and destroying it. if you get that now you should see why the destroying part is irrelevant.

Listen I get what you are saying.  Once you mill a card the opponent can, essentially assume that the milled card is at the bottom of their deck and they were never going to draw it.  

Just that that isn't a bad thing against combo.  Lets say I play 10 games against exodia mage with control warlock.  No gnomeferatus are played in those ten games.  That exodia mage will likely get combo and kill me 9/10 times.  Now lets say I put gnomeferatu and I play it once per game for 10 games (will just say on turn 2 for ease of math), I have roughly a 20% chance to mill a combo piece. (this percentage is assuming he has drawn 2 cards by the time I play gnomeferatu, also looking at the five mandatory cards for exodia combo.)  This means I mill an essential part of his combo 2 out of 10 times.  I have essentially doubled or even trippled my potential win rate.  If I am to assume we just milled the bottom card, fine, cause over the course of multiple games I am effectively forcing a card to the bottom of his deck and potentially an important one for combo.  But it's even better cause he won't actually ever get it and he'll go into fatigue faster, which is a serious thing to consider for any control deck.

It's just false to say "particular game your opponent was on the bad or good side of RNG".  With gnomeferau, and especially if you can repeat the effect you are putting that RNG in your favor game after game.  

Against combo with out a mill effect 8-9 times out of ten he will just get the combo and win.  Basically if I mill a combo card 5 out of 10 games (entirely possible with two gnomes and bounce effects) it's no longer just "oh RNG just didn't smile on him" BS.  You are forcing the card "to the bottom" and combo will miss their combo more often than you would see without gnomeferatu.

 P.S. I am not saying this card is good.  I am saying the effect has potential.  It's not strong enough on it's own I don't think.  Though I will test it thoroughly.

 We are getting somewhere here ;) Your example is very good. The one thing you are missing is the fact that it is just as much likely that the random card you remove will make your opponent draw a combo piece as it is to remove combo piece. The chance to draw any combination of X cards during the game depends only on the number of cards that you didn't draw. And Gnomeferatu does not change that number unless your opponent goes to fatigue.

Voted bad.

a 2/3 trades poorly, the ability does nothing relevant. 

Looking at this thread, I blame the education system. Probability and statistics should have been made a mandatory course in high school.

Quote from asteroidm >>

Quote from wtk300 >>

Quote from asteroidm >>

Quote from wtk300 >>

Quote from asteroidm >>

Quote from wtk300 >>

*clip*

 You aren't wrong, however this is an oversimplification isn't it?  I was referring to the mandatory pieces that I can actually mill.  If you look at exodia mage decks list, I would be happy milling any card in like 90% of their deck.  We didn't talk about the quest.  They have to generate spells, removing anyone of their generators is good.  Removing any of their card draw is good.  Even if they are one closer to a combo piece the combo needs to cast 6 spells that didn't start in their deck, on top of the combo pieces itself.  Removing their draw also slows them down.  Yes they are one card closer but them actually drawing a card with another card puts the two cards closer.  Removing any of their tools to stall you out is also a fantastic mill target, like iceblock or frost nova could be game changing.  In general not hitting a specific combo piece is still denying exodia mage a resource they need to not only get their combo but also survive long enough just to do so.  

Obviously we have been speaking specifically of exodia mage in this example.  I do this because this is one of the few examples where i think this card is "good".  Some other combo decks aren't nearly as complex and in general have far fewer prime targets for this effect.  This sort of disruptive effect isn't very impactful in such tiny quantities generally.  It needs to be more widespread usually.  Now to be fair my only experience is with other card games, it may be different here, we'll see.

Quote from Syncesta >>

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Quote from Syncesta >>

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Just because you kill an Antonidas one game in 30 doesn't make it a good card. It means the other 29 times you've helped your opponent out.

I'll happily destroy one of your cards leaving a 2/3 body for 2 mana compared to trying to fish a minion with Dirty Rat and probably give you the game in the process. I don't care what the card is, because if you've included it in your deck, you've excluded something else for a reason (I'm talking here about the few players that don't copy paste Pirate Warrior)

 

 

 Unless you go to fatigue this means nothing though. You're on about destroying a card I'd find valuable...so what? You don't draw every card in your deck anyway in normal circumstances so let's say on average you draw  20 that means every game you effectively have 10 cards (that I chose at the exclusion of others) that get 'destroyed'. And it means nothing. Destroying a card means nothing unless you go to fatigue. This isn't a guess, this isn't my 'opinion' it is a statistical fact and people arguing otherwise will realise once they actually play with the card. 

 I'm looking forward to quoting you on this.

It's exactly the same as putting that card on the bottom of the deck until you get to it. That's when it changes to being gone. What difference does t make to putting a random card on top on the bottom? Nothing! But I can see an interesting warlock fatigue deck popping up with this and the one that destroys 1 cost spells. 

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Quote from asteroidm >>

Quote from wtk300 >>

Quote from asteroidm >>

Quote from wtk300 >>

Quote from asteroidm >>

Quote from wtk300 >>

*clip*

 You aren't wrong, however this is an oversimplification isn't it?  I was referring to the mandatory pieces that I can actually mill.  If you look at exodia mage decks list, I would be happy milling any card in like 90% of their deck.  We didn't talk about the quest.  They have to generate spells, removing anyone of their generators is good.  Removing any of their card draw is good.  Even if they are one closer to a combo piece the combo needs to cast 6 spells that didn't start in their deck, on top of the combo pieces itself.  Removing their draw also slows them down.  Yes they are one card closer but them actually drawing a card with another card puts the two cards closer.  Removing any of their tools to stall you out is also a fantastic mill target, like iceblock or frost nova could be game changing.  In general not hitting a specific combo piece is still denying exodia mage a resource they need to not only get their combo but also survive long enough just to do so.  

Obviously we have been speaking specifically of exodia mage in this example.  I do this because this is one of the few examples where i think this card is "good".  Some other combo decks aren't nearly as complex and in general have far fewer prime targets for this effect.  This sort of disruptive effect isn't very impactful in such tiny quantities generally.  It needs to be more widespread usually.  Now to be fair my only experience is with other card games, it may be different here, we'll see.

 You guys need to quote less, Jesus wept. That's all well and good but you accept that unless you go to fatigue then...all of what you just said is irrelevant, right? If the Mage doesn't go through all their cards then burning one here or there that you think is helpful in their survival etc. doesn't actually do a damned thing.

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Quote from Syncesta >>

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Quote from Syncesta >>

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Just because you kill an Antonidas one game in 30 doesn't make it a good card. It means the other 29 times you've helped your opponent out.

I'll happily destroy one of your cards leaving a 2/3 body for 2 mana compared to trying to fish a minion with Dirty Rat and probably give you the game in the process. I don't care what the card is, because if you've included it in your deck, you've excluded something else for a reason (I'm talking here about the few players that don't copy paste Pirate Warrior)

 

 

 Unless you go to fatigue this means nothing though. You're on about destroying a card I'd find valuable...so what? You don't draw every card in your deck anyway in normal circumstances so let's say on average you draw  20 that means every game you effectively have 10 cards (that I chose at the exclusion of others) that get 'destroyed'. And it means nothing. Destroying a card means nothing unless you go to fatigue. This isn't a guess, this isn't my 'opinion' it is a statistical fact and people arguing otherwise will realise once they actually play with the card. 

 I'm looking forward to quoting you on this.

 I'm looking forward to quoting all of you in a month and then hopefully directing you to a local class where you can be taught basic bloody statistical analysis. 

I hate this card. It literally goes against both their word and their ideals for hearthstone. You can argue left and right about it being balanced or not. That isn't my concern. My concern is that they are adding this effect to the game. I never found flat out removing your opponent's cards from their deck before they can even see them, as a good thing. If Blizzard did it once, however, they can do it again. Imagine if this was a discover card. "Discover cards in your opponent's deck. Destroy one." Not only is it unfair, but it is not fun. This could at best frustrate the enemy and the player gets a laugh as their opponent's win condition is destroyed through pure RNG, and a worst a never used epic that predict things to come.

Quote from Coolerz >>

My concern is that they are adding this effect to the game.

Quote from Orinoco >>

I've read many pages of this thread and still my message is: Don't play this card. It's not worth it. Just look at the good/bad vs. any deck ratio. Most of times its just bad value.

Quote from asteroidm >>

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Quote from Syncesta >>

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Quote from Syncesta >>

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

 

 You are right in this instance.  You are denying them one random card and even over the course of many games this card probably won't show any impact.  I will say though if the card was Discover a card from your opponents deck then destroy it the effect would be much better.  A slight bit of control over the effect could actually allow the forcing of particular cards "to the bottom" allow for the effect to show far better results over the course of many games.  Denying a specific tool even amongst a limited number of tools would be far better than a random mill. 

That is likely how hearthstone would do it, but since it's confirmed the deck has an order an effect like look at the top card of your opponents deck, either put back on the top or bottom of their deck would be cooler.  This would be more like MTG.  I like it better since you aren't destroying cards and it can be circumvented by tutor effects.

 

If only there was a way for you to see your opponent's deck's top card at all times, then you could play this card at strategically the perfect moment. But as long as such a card doesn't exist, this is just bad.

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Quote from Syncesta >>

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Quote from Syncesta >>

Quote from DyingAtheist >>

Just because you kill an Antonidas one game in 30 doesn't make it a good card. It means the other 29 times you've helped your opponent out.

I'll happily destroy one of your cards leaving a 2/3 body for 2 mana compared to trying to fish a minion with Dirty Rat and probably give you the game in the process. I don't care what the card is, because if you've included it in your deck, you've excluded something else for a reason (I'm talking here about the few players that don't copy paste Pirate Warrior)

 

 

 Unless you go to fatigue this means nothing though. You're on about destroying a card I'd find valuable...so what? You don't draw every card in your deck anyway in normal circumstances so let's say on average you draw  20 that means every game you effectively have 10 cards (that I chose at the exclusion of others) that get 'destroyed'. And it means nothing. Destroying a card means nothing unless you go to fatigue. This isn't a guess, this isn't my 'opinion' it is a statistical fact and people arguing otherwise will realise once they actually play with the card. 

 I'm looking forward to quoting you on this.

 I'm looking forward to quoting all of you in a month and then hopefully directing you to a local class where you can be taught basic bloody statistical analysis. 

Quote from Syncesta >>

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?