Gildward The Swift & Chookie The Bold!

I'd prefer to just leave it at speed.

Not having a failure ability means that countering the card does absolutely nothing, but it still gives opportunity to outrun him with Firebolts and Co.

If there aren't any real abuses (Chookie and possibly Slime Valley being the exceptions), should we just ask for Focus for now and then if he proves to be too powerful (*snicker*) drop the ability to and add that "failure: destroy" cost?

that seems like the best option to me

I would prefer to go the other way around, just to be safe. The last thing we want is an overpowered Gildward.

Actually, I would love to see exactly that. It would amuse me so.

But really, I don't imagine it being overpowered at all. I'd probably just say for now, just because it oughtn't be .

I agree, let's keep for now; we can change it if he becomes so game-breaking.

Wait a minute... speed...keep for now...why, you don't agree at all! You rapscallion!

With Blue/Nolder is whom I agree with, of course. No one cares about the posts in between there and mine.

Blue_Elite Wrote:If there aren't any real abuses (Chookie and possibly Slime Valley being the exceptions), should we just ask for Focus for now and then if he proves to be too powerful (*snicker*) drop the ability to and add that "failure: destroy" cost?

This Post realy made me laugh.

I am all for giving Gildward focus while keeping him at s-speed.

Ene though there is at least one reason for using a 0-coster already. There is no meaner way to kill yor opponent off than using a single 0-coster for the final attack

Disagree.

The meanest way to kill your opponent is to control his entire board until he has one card in his deck, attack him to one life, and then cast Memory of Trauma.

Panda, that... I am in awe.

Also, I asked Web about this idea and he didn't have any real objections. I dunno if it's live on the dev server yet, but it'll probably get at least tried out somewhere.

All Pandas are pure evil. Why do you think they can only eat bamboo?

Tally

Give Gildward Focus
Reduce Speed to and add "Failure: Destroy": �ルノ, bubbleman2, Ultros
Total: 3
Reduce Speed to : masamunemaniac(), Blue_Elite, Kennisiou
Total: 3
No other change: NOLDER, Shadowhunter(guessed), Nacho(guessed), Vincent, Noodle, sXeAndriex, Serith, DarkSouled
Total: 8

Clash Zero-cost Chookie
Give 1 sac: Blue_Elite, bubbleman2, Nacho
Total: 3
Stat boost to 8/12: Noodle
Total: 1
Keep as is: NOLDER
Total: 1

Just because I found this to be hilarious:

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

Ultros Wrote:... if we give Gildward Focus, then (Failure: Dizzy) won't do anything, because he has Focus.

bubbleman2 Wrote:Right. That makes sense. In that case, Failure: Bounce sounds good even.

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

bubbleman2 Wrote:Yes...forget I said anything...

Right, back on subject now:

Ultros Wrote:... I think any matter of speed should be a webrunner decision, not a balance discussion. What with speed not being for balance and all.

Though there is a majority support for giving Gildward focus and nothing more, I do agree with this logic. Gildward technically violates the rules for and he may prove to be irritating enough that people would actually want to go as far as Fire the Main Cannoning him just to end it all (should Gildward get less than and this happens, someone BETTER print screen it!).
Otherwise ya, the 2 people who initially didn't want to change Gildward came around so complete approval for change.

Chookie is another subject though. He really wasn't addressed enough for me to say "people would agree to 1 sac as a bare minimum so let's go for it," and unfortunately he's not really a big enough deal to address in his own thread (though this thread may be an example of otherwise). I'd personally like it if there was just a mod intervention to add the 1 sac rather than actually debate the matter.

Yeah, who needs democracy when we can just have someone make changes without consent?

I'll assent to L sac on Chookie, I just missed that entire conversation.

if it'll help avoid something long and drawn out change my vote to either stat boost or sac for chookie
of the two of those i'd rather see more stats

Blue_Elite Wrote:I'd personally like it if there was just a mod intervention to add the 1 sac rather than actually debate the matter.

Sure, you say that, but I'd get all sorts of hell if I actually went and done it.

Though I'll say I'm good with giving him 1 sac I guess, so that'd make 6 to 1 in favour of a boost, with 5 for that one boost. So it's not really a mod intervention at all.

Clash Chookie definitely needs a boost, though I'm not all that particular about what. I'm not sure 1 sac would be enough, given that War Chookie accomplishes much the same purpose with rare support usage.

Then again, Clash Chookie's speed summon means a free extra 5 damage even if you sac him the first turn... no, probably still not enough to justify the card cost.

Gloop is a card that can be created that has the same stats and one more sac with no uniqueness. I think clash chookie would be okay as an 8/12 zero cost one sac.

i'd rather see him at 10/15 with no sac myself