Flying Fish | Flying Fish (Elite)

[PuppyChow]

Seriously, don't use the word OP so fast, I think with 2 different quanta cost for 6 dmg, this card is quite balanced.
When evaluating this card I was also comparing this card to the others, but when i mentioned the  cost, it was based on the fact that
Flesh Recluse  = 6 damage
Giant Frog  = 5 damage

But since flying fish requires 1 air quanta every turn, it seems fair to keep it at  one quantum cost

As was mentioned above me, you've left buffs out of your calculations. Also the creatures you've chosen for comparison aren't quite appropriate.

For Giant Frog, you'll note that across the board creatures always have better stats for the cost than comparable creatures in other elements. This is one of the strengths of the element and making creatures in other elements comparable to creatures would be unbalancing.
 
For Flesh Recluse, you'll note that the damage versus initial cost is much better for the fish, and the fish is easier to buff. In addition, the dive ability makes it so that if you are low on quanta you can just skip on diving it for a turn, and it still does 3 damage, which is still better than any other 1 quanta cost creature that I know of.

Here's where it gets a little complicated.

1) Different Quanta. 2  and 1  + 1  (ignoring that the air is played every turn) are much different. It's much easier to get the 2  . So life having easier to play and better cost effective creatures still stands. ie For 1  and 5  , you can do 30 damage in 5 turns with the flying fish, while the giant frog can do 30 damage in 6 turns with just 2  .

2) It's not like water or air are much stronger elements than life.

3) 3/1 being better than any other 1 cost creature isn't true. Other one cost creatures usually have an ability upgraded. For instance, Damselfly is 2/1, but also generates a single air every turn. Same for Brimstone Eater.

4) Buffs aren't that big of a deal, since neither water nor air have any buff cards. Using it means a trio deck, and that trio deck wouldn't be any better (probably worse) than a blessed pegasi deck or a adrenamomentum deja vu trio deck.

[ratcharmer]

But if you included this card basing the balancing on and not having any buff cards then it neither element could ever have any buff cards. It would be very limiting for future card design. Also I'd be wary of rainbows buffing this card.

In terms of abilities flying fish does have an ability, dive.

Your have a good point on the quanta cost analysis though.

[Schattenfresser]

But if you included this card basing the balancing on and not having any buff cards then it neither element could ever have any buff cards. It would be very limiting for future card design. Also I'd be wary of rainbows buffing this card.

In terms of abilities flying fish does have an ability, dive.

Your have a good point on the quanta cost analysis though.

What I don't understand why nobody said OP to the previous version: A 2|1 creature with a 0! cost Dive. This old version was easier to buff and you could play it in a duo-deck with only using a Watermark.
This version isn't easier to buff as you need 3elements, but it starts with a increased attack.

[eh pewwwp]

you should have two different dives. since it is a fish it is in water, but it can also fly so my idea is something like this

1 Dive: swim down under ocean, attack cut in half, cannot be targeted, disables Aerial Attack (burrow but underwater)
0 Surface: comes above water, enables Aerial attack
1 Aerial attack: doubles attack for one turn

or have dive be a passive ability (like grabnoid where it enters the game burrowed), and keeps aerial attack enabled, but is permenantly burrowed. so an un upped would enter 2l1 and could do up to 4 damage a turn. but since this would make it an extra strong card, you shoud raise the cost to play it, and only have the upped version cheaper

[PuppyChow]

But if you included this card basing the balancing on and not having any buff cards then it neither element could ever have any buff cards. It would be very limiting for future card design. Also I'd be wary of rainbows buffing this card.

In terms of abilities flying fish does have an ability, dive.

Your have a good point on the quanta cost analysis though.

Even if they did get a buff card, it wouldn't be a big deal. Think Pegasus.

Pegasus is 4/4 for 4  in an element that can give it +3/+3 for 2  . Now in my opinion, blessed pegasi aren't OP.

So what does this prove? It proves that a buff in-element on a diving creature isn't OP. Buffing a creature with dive essentially gives +2x/+y, where x and y are the original values of the buff. If that isn't OP on pegasus it won't be OP on flying fish.

Granted, the fact that flying fish has a quarter of the cost may have an effect, but we shouldn't say a card is OP based on cards that aren't indevelopment/developed yet. If a water or air based buff card comes, then we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

About it having an ability, the thing is that the main point of damselfly and brimstone eater is to create quanta, with the damage just as an added bonus. The main point of the flying fish is to deal damage and it has no secondary purpose, so naturally, it should be much better at that main purpose than the damselfly and brimstone eater are at their secondary purpose.

[ratcharmer]

What I don't understand why nobody said OP to the previous version: A 2|1 creature with a 0! cost Dive. This old version was easier to buff and you could play it in a duo-deck with only using a Watermark.
This version isn't easier to buff as you need 3elements, but it starts with a increased attack.

I did say I thought the ability should cost at least one I think the card just got changed again before any real debate started.

[Schattenfresser]

What I don't understand why nobody said OP to the previous version: A 2|1 creature with a 0! cost Dive. This old version was easier to buff and you could play it in a duo-deck with only using a Watermark.
This version isn't easier to buff as you need 3elements, but it starts with a increased attack.

I did say I thought the ability should cost at least one I think the card just got changed again before any real debate started.

The reaction to the last change was fast and the first 2 post said something about op. 
The previous version hadn't such a reaction.