Just wondering: can Beneath the Grounds counter Reno or are the ambushes not considered as cards?
I would imagine, since you actually draw ambush and a card from your deck, that they're not considered cards.
Also there's no reference on the card itself, that the ambushes actually are cards.
Ambushes are very correctly considered a card. It has ability that triggers on draw that 1)destroys the card upon draw 2)summons nerubian 3)trigger a draw. Additional cases where that's obvious: -if you draw with 10 cards into ambush it gets destroyed and you don't draw another -if you draw it with chromaggus on board you get a copy of the card that does nothing
I was actually wondering if there's mathematical function that can be fit to calculate the chance of Reno healing. Variables would be: [30] - constant deck size [0-14] - number of duplicates (Reno can't be duplicated so you cant have 15 dupes) [1-30] - number of cards drawn so far
I think Multivariate hypergeometric distribution portrays that correctly right?
Precisely, it is just some basic combinatorics, although the mulligans are a huge factor, that right know I can't be bothered to calculate (if it is even possible), I only know that the less duplicates you have in the deck, the bigger role they play. I am PRETTY sure that with the mulligans as a factor, you can safely run 2-3 (even 4) dupes. Right now I am running CW with double Axe, Bite, Slam, Execute, Armorsmith (which would be the first to go) and so far Reno is still working. I have no idea why is all the fuss about "unreliabilty" with a small number of duplicates.
Anyway, only time and, more importantly, mathematics will tell. :)
Highlander decks will work, but I wonder if reno won't do well for cycle decks as well. Cycle rogue for example, might become a thing. You set it up and you can cycle your deck by 9/10 and perhaps gang up reno. There will be a skill requirement (read: pen&paper) for those though, but that's cool.
I did a rough calculation, if you have 2 pairs of cards, there is only a 27% chance to trigger Reno combo with 15 cards undrawn, halving the value of Reno. You need to draw 4 more cards to get the 50% probability again.
Or you can think of it in another way: if you have 1 pair of cards, then Reno's battlecry becomes a 2-card combo. If you have 2 pairs, then it's a 3-pieces combo.
Highlander decks will work, but I wonder if reno won't do well for cycle decks as well. Cycle rogue for example, might become a thing. You set it up and you can cycle your deck by 9/10 and perhaps gang up reno. There will be a skill requirement (read: pen&paper) for those though, but that's cool.
I took drawing Reno into consideration. Common sense tells that you have 50% chance to draw Reno, and half of the time you cannot use him because either pair has a 25% chance to fail you. So 25%+ is proper.
I took drawing Reno into consideration. Common sense tells that you have 50% chance to draw Reno, and half of the time you cannot use him because either pair has a 25% chance to fail you. So 25%+ is proper.
Well, then you're right, still that factor should not be count with in my opinion. Of course you will not get Reno every time, but you made a whole deck around him, so it's just the matter how efficiently you can trigger the effect when you draw him.
Well, that's a factor that's equally important as no duplicates left in the deck. Not taking it into consideration would be foolish. What good does it do you if you have no dupes in the deck but don't have Reno in hand? I mean, it's self explanatory.
I took drawing Reno into consideration. Common sense tells that you have 50% chance to draw Reno, and half of the time you cannot use him because either pair has a 25% chance to fail you. So 25%+ is proper.
Well, then you're right, still that factor should not be count with in my opinion. Of course you will not get Reno every time, but you made a whole deck around him, so it's just the matter how efficiently you can trigger the effect when you draw him.
Well, that's a factor that's equally important as no duplicates left in the deck. Not taking it into consideration would be foolish. What good does it do you if you have no dupes in the deck but don't have Reno in hand? I mean, it's self explanatory.
You're all considering Reno as a holy grail that will grant you a win when you draw him and have no dupes in the deck. But that's a pretty foolish angle if you ask me. You definitely should not rely on Reno in every game. That's why only the effect success ratio is important, not a Reno itself.
What are you talking about? I don't even think it's good, I'm certainly not going to play it. So please stop with your straw man arguments.
What is interesting is when, on average, you can expect to play Reno. It's a huge difference if that's 15 cards or 18 cards in. To play Reno, you need to have the card in your hand. It's completely irrelevant only to know when you expect the effect to be able to go off. I don't even understand why I'm forced to explain this. I mean do you use the same kind of reasoning when considering Alexstrasza? It's not interesting at all how long it takes you to actually draw the card, because you can always get the effect off? Some sense, please...
No, my arguments aren't contradictory, the problem is you don't seem to understand them. I'm only arguing the correct way to calculate when, on average, you can expect to play Reno. Nothing else.
The point with Alexstrasza seem to have been completely lost on you, so I'll try to make it clearer. When trying to decide whether or not to play Alexstrasza in your deck, you need to consider if you need any other heal (for instance) if you're planning on sometimes using it defensively. When you can expect to draw it, depends on your draw engine. If the draw engine isn't strong enough, and you don't expect to be able to stall the game with no heal until drawn, you may not want to play it or you might add stall, AoE, heal or draw to the deck. Or you might decide that it doesn't fit at all.
This is the point of my argument about Reno. There's a huge difference in expecting to be able to play him on turn 7 or turn 11. In the case of the latter, you might not want to play the card at all. What you are, in effect, suggesting is that it doesn't matter if you can expect to play the card on turn 11, because the effect is able to go off on turn 7.
The important thing is, whether you can effort to have dupes in your deck or not and how much it affects your chance to trigger the effect as the whole deck is build around this card.
Because it means the same for the match result whether you can't draw Reno or you let it stay in your hand as a dead card. The Reno strategy doesn't work and you have to go plan B, then you're playing an inferior deck built within additional confinement.
I found it very important to point out the requirement of having Reno, because the graph suggests a misleading conclusion without this consideration. The graph shows that, if you run 2 pairs, you need 16 cards undrawn to have 50% certainty to make Reno's battlecry activable. But the truth is, if you want 50% certainty that you can actually throw Reno onto board to regain full health, you can only have 11 cards undrawn. There's a difference of 5 cards, and that's a whole lot of difference.
It's only in aggro/midrange matchups that the Reno has the most value, in which cases the games shut down fast. In control matchups except against Freeze Mage, you line up with your opponent's deck, and then Reno is merely a Healbot with a better body. So you generally want Reno available soon.
So I gauge that including 2 pairs of cards halve the value obtained from including Reno in deck. A normal deck runs 10~12 pairs of cards, I don't see the point of cutting down by 8 and stopping at 2, only to get a half of what you sacrifice for.
It has ability that triggers on draw that 1)destroys the card upon draw 2)summons nerubian 3)trigger a draw.
Additional cases where that's obvious:
-if you draw with 10 cards into ambush it gets destroyed and you don't draw another
-if you draw it with chromaggus on board you get a copy of the card that does nothing
Piloted Shredder, Knife Juggler, Mad Scientist, Dr. Boom
Need to be removed from this game
Highlander decks will work, but I wonder if reno won't do well for cycle decks as well. Cycle rogue for example, might become a thing. You set it up and you can cycle your deck by 9/10 and perhaps gang up reno. There will be a skill requirement (read: pen&paper) for those though, but that's cool.
I did a rough calculation, if you have 2 pairs of cards, there is only a 27% chance to trigger Reno combo with 15 cards undrawn, halving the value of Reno. You need to draw 4 more cards to get the 50% probability again.
Or you can think of it in another way: if you have 1 pair of cards, then Reno's battlecry becomes a 2-card combo. If you have 2 pairs, then it's a 3-pieces combo.
I took drawing Reno into consideration. Common sense tells that you have 50% chance to draw Reno, and half of the time you cannot use him because either pair has a 25% chance to fail you. So 25%+ is proper.
No, my arguments aren't contradictory, the problem is you don't seem to understand them. I'm only arguing the correct way to calculate when, on average, you can expect to play Reno. Nothing else.
The point with Alexstrasza seem to have been completely lost on you, so I'll try to make it clearer. When trying to decide whether or not to play Alexstrasza in your deck, you need to consider if you need any other heal (for instance) if you're planning on sometimes using it defensively. When you can expect to draw it, depends on your draw engine. If the draw engine isn't strong enough, and you don't expect to be able to stall the game with no heal until drawn, you may not want to play it or you might add stall, AoE, heal or draw to the deck. Or you might decide that it doesn't fit at all.
This is the point of my argument about Reno. There's a huge difference in expecting to be able to play him on turn 7 or turn 11. In the case of the latter, you might not want to play the card at all. What you are, in effect, suggesting is that it doesn't matter if you can expect to play the card on turn 11, because the effect is able to go off on turn 7.
Do you see the flaw in your logic now?