Hearthpwn

Personally I don't see any promises of absolute randomness from Blizzard.  I mean they have to report odds with regards to pack purchases by law and do so.  But I don't see any reason for them to be bound to absolute randomness.  When cards don't quite work for a meta or game I could see them doing small tweaks to how the card plays without disclosing rather then remove the card or nurf it.

I am not saying that this is occurring here. But blind trust is a corporation is arguably drinking more koolaid then questioning and checking occasionally. 

Obsessive questioning is a waste of time but obsessive trust and mocking of questioning is meh.

Data sample size of just 3 so far. 

First event: cast missiles with 2 minions on board. All 3 hit same minion.

Second event: cast missiles with 3 minions on board. All 3 hit same minion. 

Event 3: 2 minions on board, hit 1 twice and the other once. 

Event 4: 2 minions on board, hit 1 twice and the other once.

Event 5: 5 minions on board, hit 3 different minions.

Not playing much lately but will report back with more data as available.  But it seems so far like there's nothing to see here.

Quote from TallStranger >>

Quote from DickDraggin >>

Quote from EnderBSG >>

Nothing to see here, just full blown confirmation bias party.

 Unless you have collected sufficient statistical data to disprove this your opinion is just as unfounded.

 But reason IS on his side. There is no logical reason for Blizzard to deliberately make DM non-random. It makes them no money, nor does it make any difference to them who wins or loses a given game. So the only way this could happen is if there's a bug in the code causing this problem. Unfortunately for this theory:

1. I don't write code, but this has to be trivially easy to write; and

2. Blizzard is almost certainly using exactly the same code it uses for Arcane Missiles, just making it hit only minions and changing the effect of a hit.

But your response is too common:

Poster #1: "The game is rigged."

Poster #2: "Where's your data proving it's rigged?"

Poster #1: "I don't have to prove it. YOU have to prove it's not."

Poster #2: "......" [Smacks his head on the desk, begins weeping at the utter failure of the educational system.]

 I guess I should have winked or something.  I was just being a smart ass turning the default argument on itself.

Quote from EnderBSG >>

Nothing to see here, just full blown confirmation bias party.

 Unless you have collected sufficient statistical data to disprove this your opinion is just as unfounded.