Why whould you ever choose Mictlan?

[Jarkko]

Peter Ebbesen said:
To take your Sanguine Acolyte example, it does not make much sense to me to state that they only cost 20% more (100 gold vs 80%) for their extra (admittedly good) effects, when even a mere 10 round life expectancy changes the relative costs to 107 vs 167, or a cost of 56% more.

Do I understand correct, basically after 15 turns Mictlan would have payed $121 for its bloodhunter while the cost for the Sanguine Acolyte would be $201, ie the Mictlan could comparatively hire another bloodhunter "for free", if costs for protection etc are not counted for?

Or to put it another way, if both are recruiting one bloodhunter for a turn, after 6 turns (assuming every turn a new bloodhunter is recruited and upkeep is paid for all) the Mictlan player could build another temple "for free" (because (6x20)+(21x4)=204>200)?

It would seem to me the Mictlan player has thus early on a clear advantage, as the killer spells (like Fires from Afar) are not at use yet. Later on the need to divert more attention (ie micromanaging) to the protection might not be very pleasing (at least to me), but the economic "lead" acquired early on does not disappear (entirely).

Did I get it right?

Edited computing error