Gildward The Swift & Chookie The Bold!

I'd say Chookie is all the reason we need, but really, I think any matter of speed should be a webrunner decision, not a balance discussion. What with speed not being for balance and all.

My thought was that Gildward's ability deserves more than Chookie's (because sniping is a much greater threat to the opponent) and that Chookie's ability could be moved to if anything. If there was some other abuse for Gildward's ability at , then it would be fairly easy to decide to take off Gildward.

If there's only one card that breaks the speed rule, it has no other speed cards to create clickwars with, so it works the same as having 'Faster than speed' when used against another ability. Which card it is doesn't matter as long as there's only one.

Well, there are still clickwar issues with the likes of a Rainbow Slime on 1 lifepoint...

Speaking of which, is it possible to maybe put "Or is a mana ability," or something of the likes into the guide?  Perhaps it's not meant to be that way, but I always thought that a source that can make mana otherwise should always be .  'Cause you know, you could want to counter your opponent gaining mana somehow. Not a big deal, but there's no note in the guide right now.

sXeAndriex Wrote:(focus) sounds fine. I really, really don't get why he should be changed from S speed. It seems pointless.

its the principal of the thing i think
now that we realize it doesn't fit S we're obligated to change it

though if everyone else is ok with ignoring that i am because i really don't want to see gildwards speed lowered

There are a few cards that have but don't fit the requirements and that's alright because web designed them that way. At least, since the speed rules were made by web, I would think he would have the authority to override them. If people don't think the Chookie click war is a big problem and aren't worried about a difficult to counter 5 damage a turn then there's no reason to change Gildward's speed. Though I'd personally like it if it was Faliure:dizzy for balance reasons, as without it Gildward would be a tad too powerful for a zero cost monster in my opinion.

i guess in the end this is a decision for web to make and not balancers
also i LIKE that there is a clickwar with chookie myself

bubbleman2 Wrote:Though I'd personally like it if it was Faliure:dizzy for balance reasons...

masamunemaniac Wrote:Hey guys...

Cannot be dizzied
(Failure: Dizzy)

Think about it...

Neither of those are actually arguments. Having/quoting one of those would probably help convince me.

He's pointing out that if we give Gildward Focus, then (Failure: Dizzy) won't do anything, because he has Focus.

Right. That makes sense. In that case, Failure: Bounce sounds good even.

...So if his ability to bounce himself fails, he bounces himself?

But if the ability fails then that's the ability they're trying to prevent from happening. Maybe Failure: Lose ?

edit: that sounds good to me squirm

Go team logic!

Yes...forget I said anything...

(Failure: Destroy) sounds closest to what you were originally going for with (Failure: Dizzy), since if the opponent wants to get rid of him and you're unable to use his ability, he's not gonna survive. And it seems reasonable enough to me

Yeah, that sounds good. It would give players an incentive to actually spend three or four mana on countering a zero-costing card.