Hearthpwn

Odds of seeing no  lock-specific, assuming that you can't get a choice between two of the same: (29/36*28/35*27/34) = 51.1% chance, so you're actually at just under a 50% chance to see at least one class specific card.

Beginning with a more mathematically correct assumption, I just wanted to expand upon the trend I was noticing in my earlier post with some numbers that aren't off the mark. Specifically, after conducting a sample size of 50 Dark Peddler Discovers, this is what I found:

In 7/50 Discovers, there were no Warlock cards to choose from.
In 20/50 Discovers, there was 1 Warlock card to choose from.
In 20/50 Discovers, there were 2 Warlock cards to choose from.
In 3/50 Discovers, all 3 cards to choose from were Warlock cards.

Admittedly, the sample size is not as high as I'd like nor can I draw any concrete conclusions about exact probabilities, but I hope this is enough to draw attention to the issue. Class cards seemed to be favored to a significant degree. Significant enough to take an expected result of 51% of Discovers containing no Warlock cards and end up, over 50 tries, less than 20%. Anything more than that I leave to everybody else to test and conclude.

I make it 36 possible non-token one drops you can get, according to Hearthpwn; 7 of which are lock-specific. Odds of seeing no  lock-specific, assuming that you can't get a choice between two of the same: (29/36*28/35*27/34) = 51.1% chance, so you're actually at just under a 50% chance to see at least one class specific card.  As for overall numbers, I'd like to see a bigger sample size, as I realized that you've looked at total class cards, not discovers with at least one (latter of which is probably more useful in power levels).

Assume the 14 cards listed above are all ones you'd like: (22/36*21/35*20/34) = 21.5% chance to not see one of those. That looks good, and is better if there is a skew.

Hey all - I was a believer of this card from the beginning and so almost immediately I started playing with it in my Zoolock deck. It wasn't long before I noticed a trend... class cards seemed to be appearing more frequently than they mathematically should, assuming (like we all did originally) that class cards and neutral cards had an equal chance of popping up on Discover.

Curious, I ran a sample of 20 "Discovers" using this card. The expected result would be that of the 60 card selections, 7/37 of the resulting card selections should have been class cards (or just under 20%). In other words, of the 60 cards that 20 Discovers revealed, the expectation was approximately 10-12 class cards. Instead, I hit 27/60 as class cards, nearly half. If I had more time I'd do a larger sample size, and maybe this is already a known mechanic of Discover, but I hadn't seen it talked about in relation to the expected result of this card.

Needless to say, if class cards being favored is true, it makes the expected result and power level of this card and all Discover cards much higher. Specific to Dark Peddler, it's simply a fantastic Zoo card (that will take a minor hit once Reliquary Seeker comes out to dilute the awesome Warlock 1 drop pool a bit) that I highly recommend testing if you're as much of a fan of the deck as I am.

EDIT: This math is incorrect, see below. The trend still seems real though.

Quote from Darthjebus211 jump

I have no idea how blizzard costs these.

3 mana for destroy random enemy so 6 mana for destroy 2. Since that would require two cards to pull off with deadly shot lets imagine a card that was 6 mana destroy two minions and discard a card. This would be exactly the same for board and mana as two deadlies. If you're going to add another discard then soulfire and succubus show that discarding a card is worth about 1.5 mana so the card as it is should cost either 4 or 5 to be balanced. Probably 4 since, with only fist of juraxxus having discard synergy, there is no feasible deck to run this. It's either a rush deck that runs out of cards but for some reason carries a heavy removal card or a control deck with either not enough card synergy to care about losing them or a game plan that revolves around going top decking. 

Exactly this, IMO. This card is one of the most self-defeating, inherently flawed cards that I've ever seen. There are so many layers to discovering just how bad, how less than viable this card is it's certainly an experiment in Ben Brode's learning the game through bad cards. Not entirely unlike all TGT warlock cards, but certainly standing uniquely above them (or below them, as the case may be).

Quote from Daws jump

Yikes. I feel bad for Locks. Wilfred Fizzlebang is pretty sick but otherwise they got some blah cards this expansion. This demon is just plain yogurt blahness :/

By the end of it they even ran out of ways to give us creatively awful garbage, so they just settled on this.

Quote from Kunigunde53 jump

There will never be card buffs.

One thing they could do instead is to "retire" crap cards that got creeped. Meaning some (or all) of the following:

- You no longer get the card from packs, you get something else. But you can still craft it if you have masochistic tendencies

- You can no longer get the card in arena

- Card is removed as a potential target for some random effects, like "add a random minion to your hand" or "summon a random X cost minion"

Also, someone made a good point about how allowing this to happen keeps the design space open.

Back when i played MTG, at events, some people would immediately sort out the crap cards when opening packs and just leave them on the table for anyone else to pick up. At the end of the day there would still be cards lying around to be thrown away by the cleanup crew. That made me sad because trees actually had to die for it, and some of the best inks and printing presses were used to create the crap.

Every CCG has crap cards, at least this one is digital so no trees have to die. Card buffs just open a massive can of worms and expose the game to risks of very bad and very public design screwups. There already is a risk of such screwups, in the form of releasing cards that are too strong, requiring nerfs and temporarily messing up the meta. Buffing a card, and making it too strong, requiring a nerf, is a catastrophe that can be avoided by never buffing cards. The risk of releasing unexpectedly overpowered cards or unexpectedly powerful synergies cannot be avoided, the risk of screwing up a buff can be eliminated.

Please also notice how this card shows us which strategy blizzard is going for, in an ABUNDANTLY CLEAR way. For me, this is exactly what i expected to happen sooner or later, for some of you it is troubling because it UNDENIABLY SHOWS that card buffs are NOT in the design space they have chosen, taking away your illusions about the possibility of card buffs. You can feel sad about this, i am not, because i believed this to be the best strategy in the long run and have been saying so ever since naxx got released.

Bad cards will be ignored. No mercy, no love for bad cards. Deal with it. Better designs and other choices make them bad in the first place, and new designs will supersede them.

All of this has absolutely no bearing on examples like this card. There is no logic, present in your post or otherwise, beyond design laziness (and greed, though I hate to throw that one around) to rerelease an existing HS card in a strictly superior form. Buffing BBB to 4 mana would run the risk of those catastrophic meta screwups but releasing this card would not? Doesn't make sense. If this set had been 130 cards and had 2 footnotes, Magma Rager +1 health, BBB -1 mana, it'd be the same exact meta outcome without introducing bloat.

Seems optimal to me, again, unless you're interested in inflating the quantity of cards included in TGT with these lackluster additions.

As the card text implied, it can kill itself.

https://twitter.com/CM_Whirthun/status/632303781695262721

Trash from start to finish for warlocks. /sigh

Quote from Trophycase1173 jump

Maybe BBB will be given a humanoid tag or something in the next expansion to make up for this, who knows. Seriously though, you were paying 1 more for taunt instead of beast on a lost tallstrider, the card was straight garbage and this increases the future design space for blizzard. By saying no card can be strictly better than a 5/4 taunt for 5, you were basically limiting what could be made.

Which is a great case for them to revisit BBB, not release this, IMO.

Quote from Noctune jump

Quote from Esker jump

Pretty trash, IMO. The only kind of deck you'd want this sort of effect in would be a control type deck, which is where the discard price will always be highest.

i m thinking midrange or zoo (for late game clear), you dont really want to lose that much resource in control

You can't afford to run something like this in zoo, IMO. Zoo is all about consistent curves and consistent tempo, and a 6 mana removal spell just tanks your consistency in both areas. Even a discard deck using Fist of Jaraxx, Succubus, and Doomguard (as awful as that would be) obviously tends toward the naturally aggressive, so this removal card wouldn't fit there either.

This card would fit in the kind of deck that is slow enough to need 6 mana spell removal but not slow enough that it doesn't worry about discarding resources...? I'm not sure such a thing could ever exist. It would take some cards with the same kind of mechanic as Fist of J but more control-esque, and even then, I think it'd still be bad given the random nature of discarding and the natural large hand size of a control style of play.

Quote from Nikos_the_great jump

Quote from M_Ronin jump

Quote from Nikos_the_great jump

Who the fuck cares if it's power creep. Booty bay guard is very weak, and this card is weak too. Who cares if completely unplayable cards get power creeped. You guys gotta relax a bit.

Because this mindset creates a cycle that makes old card obsolete more and more? Because it adds nothing to the game, that buffing old cards can't? Because it reeks of an attempt on behalf of producers to fill their pocket in the cheapest way possible?

But booty bay guard wasn't even playable in vanilla. If they power creeped Argent Commander, for example, I'd be worried - because he used to be viable and is now getting power creeped.

That has nothing to do with his point. If they thought those cards were undervalued, why not simply change them?

Quote from DrSMA jump

Quote from DarkArchon21 jump

Locks got shit on so bad...WTF is this card even supposed to be??? Has 0 text which makes no sense for a Demon and we already have a Doomguard...So so bad....Locks didn't get a damn thing for constructed play, all unplayable trash.

As someone who plays Handlock/Zoo, Warlock doesn't really 'need' anything. We have arguably the most amount of viable decks of any other class, be it Zoo, Handlock, Demonlock, Malylock, and Demon Handlock.

So warlocks should be happy playing the same old decks until the next expansion just because? They didn't agree with that philosophy for mage, which has just as many playable archetypes. There isn't even a coherent neutral theme for warlock to try and play with instead, because we've had an "inspire" deck for some time now. It's called handlock, and it has more viable synergy with our hero power than anything this expansion gave us. Enjoy zoo, handlock, and all of their more gimmicky spinoffs until the next adventure hits, fellow warlocks. Nothing to see here.

Pretty trash, IMO. The only kind of deck you'd want this sort of effect in would be a control type deck, which is where the discard price will always be highest.

Quote from Isaarou jump

Looks like Warlock is the biggest loser of  TGT.

And it's not even close.

Garrosh playing Varian is no more strange than Magni playing Grommash or Anduin playing Vol'jin.

... yeah, ok. It's a bit more strange. But still.

Quote from sherr jump

Quote from kusanagi1030 jump

I don't care about his capacity, look at those stats... 1/1

So the warlock mount is supposed to be as strong as a f*cking wisp?

wisps killed Archimonde,...

You mean Jaraxxus.