Playing against Dream Catcher enough times has made me respect this card...
Yes, it does take a bit of setup to use. However, comparing it to Pulverizer isn't fair, in my opinion. It's like comparing Arsenic to Scorpion, or Vampire Dagger to Vampire. The weapon will often be stronger than another card that does something similar.
I believe the repeatable permanent destruction that isn't vulnerable to other PC is worth the setup and cost it takes, especially when it can be done with only a single element.
Attempting to correctly compare Arsenic to Scorpions is my specialty
Pulvy
Costs: 4
, 1card (had to be drawn), the Weapon Slot and 3
|2
per PC
Effects: 5 Attack and PC skill
Butterfly effect
Costs: 5
, 1card (had to be drawn), the cost of a creature with <3 atk and 3
per PC
Effects: 1 creature with <3 atk and PC skill, Lacks summoning sickness
Initially these are hard to compare. However I have a few guidelines from observing other patterns.
1) The cost of another card (in this case the creature with <3 atk) can be crossed out if it does not reduce the value of the creature and if the creature was initially balanced.
2) Costing either the Shield or Weapon slot is ~ equivalent to +3 casting cost
3) Activation costs of 2-3 on creatures or 3 on permanents are roughly equivalent after taking the increased permanent resilience and the possibility of SoR into account. (this may change if SoR changes) These activation costs are roughly equivalent to a +1 casting cost compared to activation costs of 1 on creatures or 2 on permanents.
4) 1 Attack ~ worth 1 quanta of casting cost
Pulvy
Costs: 3
|2
, 1card (had to be drawn), and Activation Cost per PC
Effects: PC skill
Butterfly Effect
Costs: 6
|5
, 1card (had to be drawn), and Activation Cost per PC
Effects: PC skill, Lacks summoning sickness
Conclusion:
Butterfly Effect costs an effective 3quanta more to cast but does the PC skill does not have inherent summoning sickness unless the creature still did. Is this balanced?
