no. did you not read my post properly? it would not be less effective because not only would it be likely to have more HP than the recluse but also i said that the recluse was inefficient because it wasn't a "high range power packed giant".
Keep in mind that many decks have no CC, or they have CC that does not have an effect that takes HP into account. In this case, the recluses would outclass creatures with larger HP but equal efficiency (if both attack and HP are factored in). It makes sense that in some cases one card would be preferred, and in another cases a different card would be preferred.
the only time phase recluse would outlast higher attack and HP creatures is with reverse time and that is too situational to make a solid argument out of.
no. spells are designed to be used. creatures are not designed to die. you usually only get six of them whereas CC can be abundant, sometimes multiple spell per element. basically if you use a lightning to kill a spider/recluse you would have bought that card specifically for the purpose to kill something. the person who bought the recluse would have bought it to last.
If creatures were designed to last forever, resilience would be worthless, and many cards would have no use in the metagame. Clearly, creatures are designed to sometimes die.
creatures are NOT designed to die. it's just like we are not designed to fly, but we still manage it. i'm talking about how the creatures are not built with and automatic timer that kills the creature when it goes off, and the only reason they die is because of CC
yes that 1 hp makes a difference. it means another turn of attack against fire shield and sometimes carapace, it reduces the chances of being turned into a skeleton to 0.125 with skull shield, and it puts it out of range of a couple of spells. and the one less quanta cost does matter. for example if you play 3 SN you can then get out 2 flesh recluses, but only 1 phase recluse. that's nearly double damage.
Of course it makes a difference, as does the 1 quantum cost. However, the 1 hp and 1 quantum are together not enough to make the phase recluse significantly weaker. Thus, the phase recluse is balanced compared to the flesh recluse.
actually i beg to differ. in this situation it would induce almost twice the damage for an extra turn (basically 14 damage from the phase recluse against 24 from the flesh recluses). that is significant enough to cause imbalance IMO.
and just how severe can it be? give me an example of a huge catastrophic occurrence due to a 1 
cost reduction. my only other concession would be +1 hp instead.
It wouldn't catastrophicly wreak the metagame, but there is no need to make a balanced card overpowered. It's a waste of programming time and centralizes the metagame.
it would in no way make it imbalanced, especially in view of all of aethers multiple expensive cards. if you ask me we owe it to aether anyhow. think of it this way. average scenario is it lasts for the 2 turns on the field as i said. now this is 14 damage you're looking at which is nearly 3 times that of a ball lightning which costs nothing. for a 1 turn card like BoL that does 15 damage i'd look to pay around 2 quanta. surely it's not too much to ask for a card that does 7 damage over 1 turn to cost 3
? not a big deal and would not centralize or disrupt the metagame.
Guest Posts
.
), and my score is 42941.
cost
and i have only won 1 card.