No merge No no no no and no. A gimp kill is entirely different from an edge guard. Sometimes a gimp kill results from an edge guard, but a gimp kill can be so many other things. Here, have some set theory.

L=the set of all possible gimp kills
B=the set of low damage edge guard kills
U=the set of edge guard kills
Y=the set of edge guards

The only notable relation here is that:

B is a subset of L

No other relation is possibly justified because:

B is a subset of U but
U is not a subset of L

Essentially, gimp kills mean so many different things. A gimp may be the application of a projectile to an enemy who's just jumped on a spring may far up. It may be hitting Pit while he had his WoI on, and he falls through a hole in the stage, or gets pounded by lava or something. Oftentimes, even, a gimp comes from an edge guard, but it's certainly not exclusive, and 'gimp' does not create the association 'edge guard' Semicolon (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No merge. Semicolon is correct here. The only thing that an edge guard and a gimp have in common is they let you push your opponent's wig back. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No Merge Yeah.Smoreking(T) (c) 17:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't Merge -- There are so many more gimp kills than that. We need to put in effort to it; edgeguarding is when you pretty much kamikaze to kill foes. Gimping is laming off moves that own opponents in a simple one or two steps, like PK Thunder, fireballs, projectiles mainly, other moves like d-tilts, etc. THEY ARE NOT SAME AS EDGEGUARD! Skrabb-a-log File:Scorpion.jpg What are you waiting for? Click it! 00:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


Yes, I realize it has already been discussed above, but I think they're all wrong. Edgeguarding is preventing your opponent from recovering back on to the stage, gimping is killing the opponent at a low percent by preventing them from recovering back on to the stage. Atleast nowadays, smashing your opponent too far off the stage to recover is not considered gimping to my knowledge. As for the two examples, the Fox/Falco one is not a gimp, it's the same concept as the example I gave above of what is not considered gimping. As for the Link one: the edgehog would be considered edgeguarding, and even if it didn't need the edgehog, it would be wrong for the same reason as Fox's and Falco's. Tibarn12 (talk) 04:11, December 27, 2016 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.