Talk:Discard effect

From Hearthstone Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Overdraw vs Discard[edit source]

Shouldn't this article mention overdrawing? Isn't that fundamentally discarding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.168.176.243 (talkcontribs) 02:32, March 10, 2015‎

I agree. Specifically, it is discarding from the deck (as Fel Reaver does) and not the hand (in neither case do the cards actually enter the hand). - jerodast (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Why 'Discard effect' but 'Removal'?[edit source]

Archmage_Antonidas#Strategy even mentions 'removal effects'. -- Karol007 (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite?[edit source]

Discard_effect#Notes says All discard effects discard cards randomly from the player's hand. As such, they add a substantial element of RNG and risk to the game. - what about Deathwing? Fel Reaver doesn't touch the hand. If only two out of five cards follow that rule, it's not much of a rule. -- Karol007 (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I've expanded it to include all examples. All discard effects except Deathwing include RNG in one form or another. -- Taohinton (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed[edit source]

[1] added (among other things) Asymmetrical hands are a lot riskier. Can someone please tell me what's that supposed to mean? -- Karol007 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I've clarified this on the page. -- Taohinton (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it OK to update articles before the cards are live?[edit source]

Some TGT cards will require updating other articles e.g. it is beneficial to discard Fist of Jaraxxus and Discard effect talks only about negative effects of discarding. -- Karol007 (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. Otherwise, when the expansion hits, the wiki will be behind for quite a while while we try to catch up. We're pretty close now anyway. -- Taohinton (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove from deck[edit source]

Once again I have to disagree with inventing our own terminology to distinguish between different things. Fel Reaver literally says it discards. Who are we to say that's not a "real" discard? I suppose we are doing it to make Fist of Jaraxxus and Dark Bargain more consistent. But that's just arbitrarily choosing one inconsistency over another. Side note, I suspect Tracking won't trigger those cards either. If I'm right, will we add that to the list of cards where the text doesn't actually mean what it says? Better would be to follow our primary sources - the card texts - and continue calling them all discard. We can simply note that Fist and Bargain have additional hidden restrictions on their triggers. Just as Secrets have additional hidden restrictions on theirs. - jerodast (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Welp, I just knew I would be wrong about Secrets, which do mention the opponent's turn thing - I assumed they were too lazy to change the tooltip when they changed that at the end of beta haha. Doesn't really change my point though. They all say Discard, they should all be here. We can address any inconsistency on the page. - jerodast (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
As you can see from The Grand Tournament patch, the wording of Fel Reaver has been changed. That's not me inventing terminology - it's me doing exactly what you're suggesting, and following primary source - the card text itself.
Since Blizzard seems to want to clearly tell players that Fel Reaver is not discarding cards (even though in common parlance it obviously is), I made Remove from deck because it made sense. The text there and on this page explains that the two are not significantly different, but are treated differently for game purposes. Blizzard are specifically telling us that Fel Reaver's ability 'removes' cards rather than discarding them, and just as you said, I believe it's best to go with this, and also use their own terminology as much as possible. Technically that would be "remove of deck", but that seems rather obviously not the correct term. -- Taohinton (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Tracking[edit source]

Tracking's discard is for all intends and purposes just like Fel Reaver's remove from deck, as far as I know, except that the text says discard. I know this because if you have less than 3 cards in your deck, last I checked, you do not take fatigue damage from looking at those three. You can say to me it's because you don't really draw them, and that's fair, but my point still stands that it's the same as Fel Reaver's remove from deck. AchedTeacher (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to changing how Tracking is tagged, however it does seem a tricky question. It is similar to a remove from deck effect, in that the cards are removed without counting as a discard, except that the cards aren't revealed to the other player (or visually 'burnt'). I believe technically the reason is that Tracking removes the card from the Set Aside Zone rather than the Deck or Hand Zones, and thus doesn't trigger either the discard or remove from deck process. In theory what we have is a unique third kind of discard/remove effect, but I'm not sure it's worth creating a new page for this, and most importantly the result would likely be pretty confusing for almost everyone. For now, I've amended the write-up on Tracking and Discard. -- Taohinton (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)