"Devour" ability is considered being too cheap.

[Gunthar]

I do complain that the "Devour" ability is too cheap in comparison with other similar powers. It cost only 1  , there is no further card needed, it allows to kill one creature and to get also a +1/+1 on the creature with this power. Similar powers on other cards are mostly more expensive while not giving any additional benefits.

Ex: Shockwave cost 2, uses a card and deals only up to 4 damage. The target is only destroyed  if it was frozen.
Ex. Owl Bow uses 2 to hit and it deals "only" 3 damage to a target creature. (I think, this is quite well balanced.)

My request is to increase the power cost of "Devour" to at least 2 or 3 (Otyugh can go with 2 but scarabs must go with 3  because the scarabs benefits from more cards effects than the Otyugh.
.)

[OldTrees]

Unlike Lightning, Shockwave and Snipe, Devour is limited in what it can target.
This is significant as you will note the only change between Otyugh and Elite Otyugh is the hp increases from 3 to 5.

So
Devour can destroy creatures of less than 3|5 hp for 1
Snipe can destroy creatures of 3X hp  for 2X
Lightning can destroy creatures of 5X hp for 2X + X cards

[xdude]

Can you post a deck often used in competitive PvP where either Otyugh or Scarab are OP?

[Shylderidh]

As far I know you need a creature with no summoning sickness to devour, which is a weakness compared to any control spell. Then you also need an opponent fielding low hp creatures to eat (or letting a sphinx produce so many scarabs / an otyug eat your own creatures for such a long time that his high hp creatures can be targeted)

So devour ability is largely balanced by all the creature control powers in the game, and all the creatures having too much hp to be eaten. And in the metagame the cheap devour skill is a good thing IMO, contributing to balance the decks with no creature control and using low hp creatures like lifelight rushes or other low cost monsters speed decks.

[maverixk]

I would agree that in some cases devour may be considered to cheap or op, etc. But I don't think that it's enough to cause a cost raise.

[Gunthar]

Try playing with any decks against a Pharao - Scarab deck and you will see what I mean. Otyughs are not so overpowered because they have  not the auto buff ability like scarabs have.

Unlike Lightning, Shockwave and Snipe, Devour is limited in what it can target.
This is significant as you will note the only change between Otyugh and Elite Otyugh is the hp increases from 3 to 5.

So
Devour can destroy creatures of less than 3|5 hp for 1
Snipe can destroy creatures of 3X hp  for 2X
Lightning can destroy creatures of 5X hp for 2X + X cards

Snipe costs 2 . That is double the amount of a devour. And you can not kill creatures with one hit if they have 4 or more HP.
Lightning costs 2 and a card. Devour costs 1 and no card. Furthermore is the devouring creature gaining an increase in attack and HP.

[Absol]

Scarab rush? Too slow.
Pharaoh Scarab? Still too slow.
Mummy RT SoR? Too many card combo, which is slow. And hand-clogging. And luck based. (partially)
Fractal Scarab? Still slow.

Why don't we just use speedbow to deal big damage? (Wrecking ball has Cloak. Now devour my Lava Destroyer.)

[OldTrees]

Try playing with any decks against a Pharao - Scarab deck and you will see what I mean. Otyughs are not so overpowered because they have  not the auto buff ability like scarabs have.

Unlike Lightning, Shockwave and Snipe, Devour is limited in what it can target.
This is significant as you will note the only change between Otyugh and Elite Otyugh is the hp increases from 3 to 5.

So
Devour can destroy creatures of less than 3|5 hp for 1
Snipe can destroy creatures of 3X hp  for 2X
Lightning can destroy creatures of 5X hp for 2X + X cards

Snipe costs 2 . That is double the amount of a devour. And you can not kill creatures with one hit if they have 4 or more HP.
Lightning costs 2 and a card. Devour costs 1 and no card. Furthermore is the devouring creature gaining an increase in attack and HP.

The "X"s were there for a reason.
Devour can destroy creatures with less hp for 1
Snipe can kill creatures with hp 1-3 for 2 , 4-6 for 4 or 7-9 for 6
Lightning can kill creatures with hp 1-5 for 2 |1 +1card or 6-10 for 4 |2 + 2card

So how efficient is Devour? It depends on the hp of the Devouring creature.
Otyugh only affects 1-2 hp creatures
Elite Otyugh only affects 1-4hp creatures
Scarab requires swarming to be able to devour anything.

Consider 2 Lightnings vs 2 Scarabs
2 Lightnings (4 + 2 cards) can kill 2 1-5hp creatures or 1 6-10hp creature
2 Scarabs (4 + 2 cards) can kill 1hp creatures for 1

Or you could use Pharaoh
X Scarabs (9+2X + 1 card + X turns) can kill creatures with less than Xhp for 1
So for 17 + 1 card + 4 turns you can kill creatures with 1-3 hp for 1
Owl's Eye (5 + 1 card + 1 turn) can deal 3 damage for 2

So you can pay a cost of 22 to get " :Kill 1-2 hp creature and gain +1|+1"
or you can pay a cost of 7 to get " :Deal 3 damage to target creature"
7 << 22

[Gunthar]

I have an Owl Bow in my deck and even I have that out before the Pharaos are beginning to spam the scarabs it is only possible to win if the opponent not have more than 1 or 2 available per round.

The Lightning vs. Scarabs is only in some degree correct. The lightning card is gone after casting. The scarab is still there and can hurt the opponent.

[Shylderidh]

It's only a question of how many low hp creatures you have.

Assuming your owl eyes deck is a mono air.

If you use dragons as main creatures and pilars for quanta, I'd say you have 80% to win against a pharaoh deck (at equal number of pilars, except the time deck is forced to use pendulums for gravity quanta). You will kill the first pharaoh before the second is played, and your opponent before he has 7 scarabs to eat a dragon.
On the other hand if you mostly use fireflies/wyrms and use dragonflies to produce quanta instead of half the pilars, I'd say the pharaoh deck has 90% to win.
(And if instead of an air deck, you had a no creature and control heavy firestall you would have something like 99% to win.)

Like every other power devour is balanced in the metagame, not because every deck has good chances to beat a pharaoh deck, but because it will usually beat some deck and usually be beaten by some others.

[OldTrees]

The Lightning vs. Scarabs is only in some degree correct. The lightning card is gone after casting. The scarab is still there and can hurt the opponent.

The scarab is still there, however the important point was the hp range that could be targeted. If no 1hp creatures exist then the 2 scarabs are useless. If more scarabs are played then they can start eating but they start to resemble as much card investment per devour used as the number of lightnings.

It's only a question of how many low hp creatures you have.

Assuming your owl eyes deck is a mono air.

If you use dragons as main creatures and pilars for quanta, I'd say you have 80% to win against a pharaoh deck (at equal number of pilars, except the time deck is forced to use pendulums for gravity quanta). You will kill the first pharaoh before the second is played, and your opponent before he has 7 scarabs to eat a dragon.
On the other hand if you mostly use fireflies/wyrms and use dragonflies to produce quanta instead of half the pilars, I'd say the pharaoh deck has 90% to win.
(And if instead of an air deck, you had a no creature and control heavy firestall you would have something like 99% to win.)

Like every other power devour is balanced in the metagame, not because every deck has good chances to beat a pharaoh deck, but because it will usually beat some deck and usually be beaten by some others.

This is the crux of the balance of Devour. If the opponent is not generous with the low hp creature then Devour << damaging CC. On the other hand if the opponent is generous the equation reverses. Devour is cheap because your opponent gets to decide how powerful it will be.