Balancing, not in how they interact with each other, but in terms of comparing cost (2 
, 1 card) vs effectiveness. Is 6 turns of delay and +20 hp on a single target equivalent in value to a 60% chance 1 turn delay en masse? Are the effects similar in impact/is choosing between them worth it? Is there an obvious superior choice?
Let's assume you're using Basilisk Blood for soft CC on your opponent. Assume also that your opponent has 5 creatures.
With a 60% chance to hit, an average of 3 creatures are delayed for 1 turn. If we use Static Sky for 6 turns consecutively, we can delay 3 random creatures for 6 turns.
So 6 Static Sky = 3 Basilisk Blood.
If your opponent has 10 creatures, you can delay 6 of them for 6 turns.
So 6 Static Sky = 6 Basilisk Blood.
You can see that the effectiveness of Static Sky scales upwards with the number of creatures effected.
So I'd say that how Static Sky balances against Basilisk Blood depends on how many creatures your opponent has. Less creatures, Basilisk Blood is better; more creatures, Static Sky is better.
The number of creatures your opponent has can vary wildly, and the issue is finding the equilibrium point at which the effectiveness of the two cards is equal. For a 60% chance of paralysis, that number is 10. I'd wager that most people have less than 10 creatures on the field at a time, though, so to balance that maybe the chance needs to be increased.
However - if you're looking to target one specific creature, Basilisk Blood will always be better. If you're looking to target your own creatures, Basilisk Blood will be better because of the +20 to HP. And Static Sky will hit your creatures no matter what, you don't get a choice.
Overall, I think Basilisk Blood will generally be better no matter what, because it can target and it gives +20. But if you don't have any creatures and are in a desperate situation, Static Sky could be useful.
To balance.... increase the cost of Basilisk Blood xD
