+- ADV, AFH, CMC, ETC (http://107.170.157.187:8000/forum)
+-- Forum: Cardmaster Conflict (/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Balance (/forumdisplay.php?fid=31)
+--- Thread: Gildward The Swift & Chookie The Bold! (/showthread.php?tid=6928)
Gildward The Swift & Chookie The Bold! - NOLDER - 04-20-2008 12:31 AM
so i had an interesting idea
it isn't needed exactly
but i don't think it could hurt either so here it goes
why don't we give gildward "doesn't dizzy"?
with his ability it actually makes him somewhat of an annoyance mid and late game as well as the beginning
RE: Gildward The Swift! - Chris B - 04-20-2008 01:08 AM
It can't really be argued that it would make him too powerful, since he's 5/5. Though it would make him somewhat good, which is totally out of character.
RE: Gildward The Swift! - Santa Squid - 04-20-2008 01:22 AM
![[Image: gildward-destroyer.png]](http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y291/masamunemaniac/Spam/gildward-destroyer.png)
RE: Gildward The Swift! - Bubbleman - 04-20-2008 01:32 AM
If this change was implemented, he would totally outclass both the zero costing Chookies. Plus, it would make him somewhat overpowered unless his ability was changed to E speed and given Faliure:dizzy, since the suggested balance would be the equivalent of 5 damage a turn, which is worth more than zero mana. I'm going to say no change for now, but I might change my mind if someone can give me a reason why this is necessary or even helpful to the meta game.
RE: Gildward The Swift! - NOLDER - 04-20-2008 01:42 AM
he wouldn't outclass the zero cost chookies
clash has +5 life on him and war has a sac plus a really cool ability
also
isn't it equivalent to 5 damage a turn now?
RE: Gildward The Swift! - Serith - 04-20-2008 01:43 AM
Yeah, 5 damage a turn ... unless the opponent has just about any monster at all out.
I kinda like the change, but I don't really know if it's a good idea or not.
edit: keep in mind that regardless of mana, this costs a card. 5 damage a turn is *not* stellar.
RE: Gildward The Swift! - Bubbleman - 04-20-2008 02:08 AM
Well, Gremlin costs a card and does...five damage. The one mana makes up for some of the +12/-3 it has on Gildward and it's ability would be for worse. This Gildward is actually currently balanced in my opinion. It has a fine ability. It's currently better than Clash 5/10 Chookie due to its ability (just saying). I mean, what's +5 life really going to end up doing when compared to a 5/5 monster? Some slight Kelar Tower and Minefield resistance is the best I can think of.
RE: Gildward The Swift! - Blue_Elite - 04-20-2008 02:09 AM
Normally, I'd be all for this. But really, it's Gildward. His niche usefulness is in his self-bounce ability that occasionally can break the game. I would much rather focus on Speed Summon Clash Chookie who lacks anything at all that could make him useful. Even 1
![[Image: lmana.gif]](http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y291/masamunemaniac/signature/lmana.gif)
sac would be better than nothing for Clash Chookie.
RE: Gildward The Swift! - Bubbleman - 04-20-2008 02:19 AM
I've been wanting Cash Chookie to have 1
sac for months but never found it important enough to mention. That would make it a half decent Magic Orb-like monster at least.
RE: Gildward The Swift! - NOLDER - 04-20-2008 02:19 AM
oh i'm not saying gildward is unbalanced
he's fine
this is an unneeded/unnecessary change to make him a more interesting/better card
my only real justification besides that is "it wont hurt"
can you give an example where he would be broken blue?
edit: i don't really want clash chookie to gain +1 sac
it feels like it would be copying war chookie too much
RE: Gildward The Swift! - Bubbleman - 04-20-2008 02:42 AM
Because they have the same sac value? That's like saying Kelar Citizen is copying Skyarian Soldier because they have the same sac, even though they have completely different abilities. Also, it's not that the ability on Gildward would be broken per say, it's just that it would be too good for a zero costing monster. Zero costing monsters are never supposed to be anywhere near broken under any circumstance, their supposed to more or less suck.
RE: Gildward The Swift! - Blue_Elite - 04-20-2008 03:03 AM
While I disagree zero-cost monsters have to suck, Gildward in all his incarnations is a terrible card by itself but useful with certain combos. There are no more examples of Gildward being broken due to the nature of broken things getting fixed. Of note were a small variety of infinity combos from "into play" effects of other cards that could be repeated by repeatedly playing Gildward (not to be confused with the multitude of Afterlife combos that use destroy effects).
RE: Gildward The Swift! - NOLDER - 04-20-2008 03:10 AM
gildward should have low stats
not terrible abilities
theres a difference
RE: Gildward The Swift! - E-mouse - 04-20-2008 03:13 AM
I like the suggestion (especially considering how nasty Dirlend can be in a rush deck - 0-costers don't have to suck entirely, they just should be easy to get rid of or have sizable downsides) and it might make him actually useful, but his ability would have to be slowed to at least B or C speed (yes, with a failure cost) to make it possible to get rid of him. I'm all for making Gildward a more noticeable nuisance (where now he's basically a first-turn 5 damage or unanticipated Gloop for the very rare kill of a <5-life creature) but I wouldn't want him to be impossible to get rid of without eliminating your opponent's hand or actually getting a block in with a creature via clickwar.
I guess he does have the occasional advantage in boosting hero synergies (mostly Plot This Way) but right now he's generally dead weight.
RE: Gildward The Swift! - NOLDER - 04-20-2008 03:16 AM
huh
i didn't think about it before but now that dirlends right there in front of me
making gildward unable to be dizzied would be a nice counter to him
RE: Gildward The Swift! - Shadowhunter - 04-20-2008 07:17 AM
I agree with the non-dizzying Gildward or maybe just "If this in in combat, after it deals damage, return to hand."
RE: Gildward The Swift! - masamunemaniac - 04-20-2008 07:35 AM
Hey guys...
Cannot be dizzied
(Failure: Dizzy)
Think about it...
While you're drawing a conclusion on what the above is meant to mean, I'll note that "If this in in combat, after it deals damage, return to hand" would suffer from the Cosmos Dragon bug.
RE: Gildward The Swift! - NOLDER - 04-20-2008 07:39 AM
fail: destroy is probably a better option
RE: Gildward The Swift! - masamunemaniac - 04-20-2008 08:05 AM
Keeping him at
speed and not giving him a failure cost is probably a better option.Really, I don't see anything wrong with giving Gildward Focus. Well, aside from the adding new abilities to cards thing.
Or Clash Chookie
1 sac value (well, aside from giving zero costers sac value in general, but as War version has it already...).I'm not really against these.
RE: Gildward The Swift! - Ultros - 04-20-2008 08:27 AM
I think Focus is a good idea, actually. Occasionally breaking the game with new cards doesn't really count as a niche use; those combos have all been removed, and doubtlessly any unanticipated future ones will be, too. So yeah, it's useless as is. And there's not really any numbers change that I see helping; it clearly needs to stay zero-cost, adding sac could be problematic since we already have one unique zero-cost saccable in War-Chookie, and boosting its attack/life would mean that we're making Gildward better in combat. Which is, of course, not what Gildward does.
Focus, though, would mean that it could get an extra 5 damage in on your opponent here and there when the opponent has no blockers, and still be able to hide from being attacked afterwards. Hardly gamebreaking, but not altogether horrible, either. And I'm amused by the thought of bringing Gildward along only when there's nothing threatening at all, just so that he can weakly poke your opponent.