Do these calculations care which order you play cards to complete the steps? While not ideal, if it's turn 3, for example, and you haven't drawn a 2-cost yet, but you have a 3-cost, I think you should be able to play it since it doesn't say you have to play the cards in order.

Come to think of it, adding like that is obviously wrong because the probability exceeds 100% within 2 or 3 turns, but in reality they could be the last 4 cards in the deck. I just tried adding because even though probabilities are generally multiplied i.e. probability of flipping a coin and getting heads three times in a row is 1/2*1/2*1/2=1/8, it came to like 3/50000. I think I may have been calculating the probability of drawing 1 of 4 cards, then doing it again, etc. Maybe I need a review of combinatorics.

Does the sequence in the numerator start at x-4 because we are looking at 1 of 4 cards? X being 30 because this is Hearthstone, right?

Is this the first time anybody from the team has publicly acknowledged the pity timer? I remember somebody did some analysis using the results of some streamer opening hundreds of packs and I'm pretty sure it did show the probability of opening a legendary go up as more packs were opened without getting one.

You say 54% chance of seeing one copy of these cards by turn 1, then in the next sentence it's 46%.

I realized I have no clue how to calculate that. I figure going first in the mulligan since one slot is taken by the questline, that's 4/29, then 4/28, and if you toss those 2, then 4/27, then 4/26. Finally, 4/27 again to draw at the start of turn 1. If I add those together I get 73%, and multiplying gets me some ridiculously tiny number.

Reminds me of Argent Protector except it gives Taunt instead of Divine Shield. Should be good somewhere.

Only reason I can see this being Neutral is that they already made 10 cards for Rogue.

Might as well be a Druid/Shaman dual-class card. It probably won't discount a lot, since almost nobody will leave it alive any longer than they have to.

Alright, who wants some slightly discounted mechs? I am genuinely not sure.

Since there are plenty of cases where you don't have a board, tradeable makes this fairly good.

Reminds me Dire Frenzy, even though the only thing this has in common is that it makes copies. Will probably mostly be seen in Hunter decks since I don't think anybody else uses beasts, except Druid sometimes.

I don't think this one will be that good. How likely are you to have 8 cards in hand by turn 4? Especially since you generally need to use your cards in order to win.

There's a lot of 3-cost minions, some of which are probably good without triggering a Battlecry. The pool might be too big for it to be consistent.

Well, this one looks good. It's nice to be able to send it back for another card when there is nothing that needs silencing.

I guess you would trade this when you aren't in a position to take advantage of the spell damage. I guess it's okay, I don't think tradeable can make a card worse.

I think adjacent minion buffs are usually pretty good. I'm going to feel a lot better playing this instead of Defender of Argus next to a minion that already has Taunt.

Put this between 2 big minions, and it's probably GG unless they have a taunt wall up. Good chance to win even if one of the attacks has to smash through a taunt.

I feel like a 6/10 Taunt when you are low on health might just save your ass.

Doesn't do anything other than stall. Probably a worse Mirror Image.

I'm not sure what class you would want this in. Armor gain makes me think Warrior, but I'm not sure there are any decks that want such a big minion. Demon makes me think Warlock, and perhaps it fits better there.

It's like putting 4 copies of the same card in your deck and having a 32 card deck. I doubt this is the kind of card you want 4 copies of though. Okay, not a perfect analogy.