I'm neither for nor against Mildred for the record .
I simply am curious about her and wanted the opinions of others.
Is she simply not good enough as a 2* ?
Or is it her minimum of 11 ?
She can create a gap of 4 - 6 for winning, and it doesn't seem too terrible?
Also, who is better; Mildred or Willow ?
Hmm, Willow is terrible from some I hear and from others she is good / ok
Treeman, I've tried him and my experiences were iffy. . .
He's really vulnerable in SOA weeks , SOB Weeks and Attack Manip weeks.
I would usually end up trying to keep a life and pillz lead so I've always preferred Willow.
But what exactly makes her bad if I might ask?
My opinions same like falco.
in a jungo/sakh/ulu deck based on life gapping, treeman works better than midred coz of mildred's maxima
in any other cases mildred is better, pretty good damage for 2* and 7 power.. okay
Willow.. well.. never even gave a thought on it.. it works horribly bad for me ..maybe coz of my playstyle
Most of the time I don't like cards that you have to both play in R1 or R2 and lose with. 2 Damage is not a threat at all. With other early game defeat cards at least they have some damage to make them a threat (parmabarb, plunk, malicia).
In addition, you have to lose more than one early round to make the ability have value. When I originally tried willow I felt like I was forced to double old and play for a 50-50 every game.