Scorch: If you played an elemental last turn, this costs (1)
Even if you have an Apprentice on board it will still cost one. Even if your opponent played Loatheb or Unraveler, it costs (1). (As long as you played an Ele last turn, ofc)
The language used is consistent. A card with text like that means that, when a condition is met, it ALWAYS costs X.
You’re just plain wrong.
I just tested with Aviana and a plethora of other cards to increase and decrease the cost of minions and spells and screen shot everything.
By your logic and definition, by your statement, and others on here who share in your willful delusions, Loatheb would have no effect because it “always costs (1)”. Yet it does. As does every other interaction with similar cards when Aviana states the exact same thing for minions; “your minions cost (1)”, no different than “this costs (1)”, yet when I pull out Emperor Thuarissan guess what? They cost 0. When I play Nerubian Unraveler (Your spells cost 2 more) and I’m holding bogbeam which is the Druid version of Eye Beam, guess what? It costs 2 instead of 0. Your “always” is inserted, that isn’t how the text reads, it isn’t how any of the other interactions work on any other card including Bog Beam which the same card with a different condition.
Costs more or less applies before and after. Example, you have a 1 cost and play Emperor Thuarissan. It stays on board 2 turns so the cost is 0. Then someone plays a “your opponents ‘card’ costs 3 more”. It now costs 2 which proves that the “costs x less” applies before and after. Otherwise it would cost 3. And if it had been 3 turns it would still cost 0 because even with the +3 cost it still has -cost equal or greater.
You’re just wrong. So is anyone else who’s ignorantly commenting the same.
You’re also stating that these cards should be immune to any “your opponent cards cost x more” because they should “always” cost 1 or 0 or whatever the text states. Which would be broken.
It’s an unintentional bug that doesn’t work the way it was intended. Period. End of story. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
No, youre wrong. I bet you didnt do your tests playing, say, Aviana first then ET and ET first, then Aviana for example. If Aviana was already on board when you played ET, then your test is irrelevant. ET has to have awarded his discount FIRST for it to mean anything.
The Outcast has priority that’s what we found out and when Eye Beam is Outcast it costs 1. Doesn’t matter if it costed 0 from Skull before all that. It was intended. Outcast costs 1 it doesn’t say 0 anymore and look it cost 1 when outcast. You know what happens with Naga Sea Witch? That’s right it costs 1 not 5 not 3 or some other number when outcast because outcast has the highest priority over all other cost effects in the case of Eye Beam. It also goes back to 0 if it was reduced by Skull and no longer in the outcast Position.
Guys I don’t know why are you all worried about DH. It’s not that powerfull personally I’m losing one match with them out of ten
#1) The claim was that “This card costs (1)” = Always costs 1 regardless which is wrong. Aviana reads the exact same way and it can still be effected
#2) I tested enough cards to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that discounts and additions apply regardless and are calculated along side any other costs x and this is known about ET as I explained in my example. If you take a 1 cost and discount it 3 times it is a -2 cost meaning it plays for 0, if you increase its cost by 3 it becomes a 1 cost again.
#3) The simple way to put it. Nothing overrides anything. They all interact. So “Your minions cost (1)” Doesn’t override or cancel “Your minions cost 3 more”. That just makes them 1+3 = 4 cost.
This was known through ET long time ago we’ve all seen interactions with say loatheb where your spells cost 5 more but ET granted enough costs less to be at -3 so the spell costs 2 not 5.
And again if it worked the way its being claimed as an absolute then it would be effectively immune to ANY costs more cards. You could double battlecry Loatheb in Wild and it would still cost (0) or (1) instead of +10. It would be broken.
Again; Bogbeam is the same with a different condition and it reads exactly the same, it is exactly the same effect of “This card costs (0)” and it increases with other interactions. It isn’t an absolute.
Again, you’re just wrong.
A) All the effect of “Card costs x” can still be effected.
B) Any plus minus applies regardless of any/all card cost x effects
Therefor the card costs 1-3 = 0. Outcast isn’t intended to override the -minus 3 that sticks on every other card and every other interaction again you’re wrong, period.
Go test it there’s well over 30 cards with cost effects try to find me 1 example where this same interaction is the result and the +/- costs are overwritten by another cost effect. You can’t because in all 45+ cards it works the way it is intended and only in the 1 rushed nerf which utilizes a new interaction mechanic introduced 2 days ago do you find this mistake.
I hope youre ready to eat crow, because I just did so using the BEST analogue for Eye Beam in the game, Scorch:
https://hsreplay.net/replay/45fKLfm4mYwmLVHKd6swyJ
Enjoy, bud 
Your statement tells me you don’t understand the mechanic.
Your comment tells me YOU dont understand the mechanic. See my replay above using the best analogue in the game. It is 100% intended for Eye Beam to have a set mana cost, regardless of modifiers, while its outcast.
Now we have that rare card nether breath is much stronger than a epic card eye beam
I encountered the eyebeam cost bug / oversight and it actually cost me the game cause I wasn’t expecting it lol.
There is no way this is intended. If you draw eye-beam with skull of Guldan you want to make sure you DON’T play it as an outcast or it will cost 1 instead of zero. There is nothing intuitive or sensible about that. I’ll be really surprised if this isn’t fixed. It doesn’t make the card better or worse; just super confusing (at least the 1st time).
Especially given Blizzard’s stance that new players are soooo easy to confuse 
It is intended. Like the guy who posted the Scorch Test its the most similar thing we have to mimic Eye Beam. Eye Beam on Outcast is 1, Outcast effect has the top priority, it is intended to be this way and that’s all that matters. Blizzard “stance” is meaningless they spew whatever nonsense to justify themselves for their press release. They do one thing and make up a reason for it and then they do the opposite thing and make up a reason for that. The only consistency is spewing nonsense to back what they just did and if enough people cry they take it back. Just like that China thing a few months ago.
And giving classes unfinished archetypes, which are then immediately abandoned.
They are quite consistent in that regard, as well.
That’s not new. They do half finished archetype or print tech for something right after it rotates. Like Secret Paladin right after the good secrets that carried the deck Rotated we get Secret Eater for example. Blizzard a day late and a dollar short with their design philosophy.
I know.
Which is why I call them consistent.
I agree that this is a flaw. The dev team rushed into the nerfs without thinking them through. Satisfying the special condition on a card should NOT make the card worse.
You could however argue that this case exists because Scorch would normally cost 1, therefore the possible cases would be
Arguably the case could be that the game in this case applies the greater discount (from 4 to 1).
By contrast Eye Beam costs 3 and would get discounted to 0 by Skull.
I’m not saying it couldn’t be intentional, I’m just saying that, given the obviously haphazard way in which the nerfs were rolled out, it could just as easily been an oversight.
It would be nice to have official confirmation either way.
But, as per the replay I provided, it doesn’t. Scorch ignores all other modifiers when its condition is met. Just like Eye Beam.
Apologies, I watched the replay and I didn’t see where it contradicted my argument.
Either way it doesn’t matter: as I said, you might very well be 100% correct.
It is just that, since in the case of Eye Beam the interaction does not just fail to improve the discount, it actually makes the situation worse, I think it would be nice to have confirmation from the devs that this interaction is indeed working as intended.
And fwiw I do think they should confirm “working as intended”, I’m just saying as is, it’s consistent.