Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Black and White Rules in Reguards to Naitonals

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris,

Quality players are broken into two camps.
1. Rogue Players - They are good, they make 99% of the correct plays. But they have a handicap of Pride, not allowing themselves to play an arch type deck. They have good game plans for each arch type match up that they can anticipate, they have an advantage in the fact there deck has "unexpected" elements or a new match up that an arch type player might not have anticpated. But disadvantage is that there deck is fundamentally not as powerful as the arch type, relies on gimmicks or opponent stategic mistakes to win.

2. Arch Type Players - They are good, they make 99% of the correct plays. They don't have a handicap of pride and thus will play the arch type decks. They know they arch type match ups and have solid game plans for these. For completely new rogue decks, they might not know the match up, but they rely on the strength of their deck and in game strategy to carry them to a win.

(3. I guess would be the person who invest in rogue builds and arch types, but will select the best deck for that day, expected metagame, IE the best of both worlds player.)

Chris, I would say the right now that #2 (Arch Type Player) has the upper hand, the power of SP is overwhelming with only Vilegar being good consistent counter. I think formats in the past that rogue decks overall ability wasn't that far off from the arch-types that the "uncertainty" factor didn't overwhelm. I look back when Rai-Eggs took 1st and 2nd in Nationals, then it did nothing at Worlds. Rai-Eggs won because it was a solid rogue, not because it was the best.

With the new rules, anyone trying to win will be forced to deal with the reality of the new format. Thus the format will become stale from the start with a much higher risk of first turn wins. Those games aren't fun, consistently no fun games leads to a format that makes people want to give up the game.
 
Last edited:
SLOW DECK said:
Pokemon IS ONLY A GAME.

Something that POKEMON needs to realize is that POKEMON ISN'T the only GAME IN TOWN.

I am a consumer, I don't have to "Suck it up" or quick whinning. I could change hobbies. We have played since the beggining, competitive player, I run a League, Buy about 2 boxes each set, and (pay attention) I don't know the name of a SINGLE new BLACK and WHITE POKEMON because I don't play the video game. Great time for me to change hobbies if I the current hobby doesn't excite me.

Again, when players complain, the attitude that we don't have a choice but to grin and bear it is completely WRONG ATTITUDE.
(BTW, I am still holding out hope that New Rules and Current Format don't ever meet.)
Click to expand...

This is so true. But I would like to expand on it just a tad. I currently do play 2 other games(a tcg, and a miniatures). I would like to think I am at least a decent player and strategist(and i have a decently solid track-record). And I love to play pokemon just as much(if not more) than the other games i play. And that is because Pokemon challenges me in a way that other games do not.
All that being said, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no challenge in my opponent flipping a sableye, showing me a collector and darkness energy, then me shaking his/her hand.
If this is what is to be expected then, I suppose I will have to stick to my other games more(at least until the new rotation). And as someone else said, expect a lot less of a turnout for events after B&W hits unless something is done.

Disclaimer: Yes, I do realize that just me as one player stopping playing for the next however many months til a new rotation probably means little to nothing to PoP or many of you on the boards. This is simply the observations of an avid(if just a tad disappointed) fan of a great game.

-Lawso
 
Slowdeck: Well said previously about the fact that the "grin and bear it " concept is flawed. The past few years I've gotten heavily into Magic, and less and less into Pokemon. Sadly, it feels that Wizards of the Coast is simply far more in touch with the players, and actively makes more decisions to improve their product. Now I know the guys who run Pokemon here have nothing but the best interest in hand for this product, and I do my best to be patient, but the more I see alternatives being handled so much better, the harder that is for me. I know it is different with Pokemon because of the fact that many decisions are made in Japan, and by other higher ups who have different priorities with the game, but as a player it is none the less frustrating. I love the Pokemon community and can never see myself leaving this game, but I'll just be completely blunt: I've had a far more enjoyable experience playing Magic lately than I have had playing Pokemon. I don't mean that as an insult to the brand or those managing it, but I do look at it as a wake up call that more can be done. Every tool needed to make Pokemon better is here, but I don't feel they are being utilized. I don't like to be the whiny type, even if it comes off that way ( simply because I really only post when I have something I feel needs objecting to: I'm not usually a very negative person )

On the other hand, I don't really believe in the concept of a "rogue deck". If I play something new and inventive, it isn't a rogue deck: Its a new archetype. Surprise factor only matters because a lot of players are terrible at adapting. The truth of the matter is a vast majority of players still reach success on the back of logging a ton of time with their decks. You'll notice at the start of every new "format" ( or set release ) that the best players start off dominating the events. The longer a format has been in tact, the more other players catch up simply on the back of logging tons of games with their deck. It happens. These players then proceed to play horribly vs newer ( particularly disruptive ) decks. Top players still often beat them. Decks like Delta ( Raichu Exeggcutor ) did great at Nats 06 against tons of LBS players during the event. I destroyed the one I played against, and so did my friend using his LBS. Overall LBS was getting thrashed by the deck that day...upon testing witht he same lists, we found that in reality, the matchup GREATLY favored LBS, just that most people had approached the matchup wrong. Now, while this can be twisted into supporting the idea using " out there " decks, this theory often falls apart because it doesn't help against the toughest opposition: those good players who WILL play correctly. The players who will lose because they approach the matchup atrociously are the same ones you will outplay and beat with LuxChomp. Or Gardevoir. Or Riptide Feraligatr.

There are two kind of "rogue ideas". One that, after the event, will become a full blown archetype, or those that don't become an archetype for a reason. If a decks been public knowledge for awhile, odds are that most testing teams have since tested with it,a nd if it isn't seeing more play, there is likely a reason for that.

I made a similar error in 2008 at Nationals. I had a Leafeon Magmortar list that was testing great against anyone I ran it against. Was smashing GG and Empoleon with it. I go 6-0 in swiss, then finish 7-2, and eventually lose in top 32 to Jason Klaczinski's GG deck because *GASP* he actually played the matchup correctly! I had a bit of bad luck ( prized Mag X all game ) but his start wasn't great either. Had I tested against him prior to the tourney with the same decks, I likely would have just gone with my backup plan of GG. It is VERY easy to get skewed results because of suspect testing. I fell victim to it at that event.

---------- Post added 04/11/2011 at 10:51 PM ----------

Here is a very good post that I know Matt Moss has posted numerous times but one that will ALWAYS hold true: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html
 
Chris,

Agreed on the flawed rogue and the undiscovered archtype concept.

What you are saying is to play the decks that can win the most likely matchups in the top cut given that you play and assume your opponent is going to have a solid understanding of your deck. I can't argue, that is the best way for a player that wants to win to pick a deck.

But on the "flawed rogue" You know there is small minority of players who can actually devise a optimal game plan during the match to a new rogue deck. Some deck are auto-pilots, where the strategy is the same regardless of match ups, but for decks with options, it takes solid players to know which options to pursue. I know Ness and Pooka in my area are incredible in "on-the-fly" analyst and diagnose a solid game startegy against a rogue deck. The rogue deck player need to avoid these players.

I know what you are saying. The rogue deck's get "fleeting" victories against opponents who don't understand the winning game plan, where as you elite players figure out the strategy quickly and even on the spot. Again, I call the rogue players weakness is pride that keeps them from playing these best decks.
 
Last edited:
Ruiner said:
this too: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-2-mailbag.html
Click to expand...

Winning only Matters versus spirit of the game. I think the game needs some aspect of chivilary.

Author basically calls players that don't adapt to "win at all cost and by all available means" strategies, then these players are SCRUBS. I think that is a bit harsh, but in think the point is that if you limit your "win conditions" to something less than what the game/format allows, you will hold yourself back in a pursuit of a top ranking and a worlds invite.

I wasn't excited about the lost world win condition when it was to come out, but I was willing to change my paradym and investigate lost zone decks and consider that win condition. I obviously investigate the Donk Potential with Uxie Donk, but once you take it to the zenith, you realize that multi Donks isn't a good game experience, thus spirit of the game, but that didn't stop me from playing the deck once this year.

This is like being an Ohio State fan, and have no problems when your program is caught cheating and doing things the WRONG way. You say, like the president of the university, as long as they win, who cares. Or being a New York Yankee fan, even though there team payroll is 10 times greater than other teams, you get a sense of pride when your best allstars that money can buy team beats a minor league team. Having Parody is advantages is why the NFL is the number one sport, because the game/system doesn't allow for long term franchise advantages to persist.

SP is the strongest deck, IE the BIG DOG or the Big Money Franchise, that has all the advantages. The rogue player priority isn't just winning and ranking points, they want to win an event, but do it "their way". Makes us Scubs, I don't think so, as long as we admit that playing Lux-Chomp would gives us a better chance of winning the event. It just makes us have a different priority than winning at all costs. (like our creative eternal soul)
 
Last edited:
Either later into the first article, or in the second, he addresses the "harsh nature" of the term scrub, but was merely using it as an accepted and previously established term towards what appears to be his primary audience, mainly those who compete in fighting video games ( although he points out, and lists, TCGs, as very applicable games this applies to as well )

I would have been a tad bit more tactful as well, but rather than go and write out every last point he made ( plagiarism! ) I figured it would be better to just link the articles.

He addresses a very good point multiple times during the course of his writing. If, at the highest peak of play, there is imbalance, that is the fault of the games design, not the players who play the game they are given. That is absolutely true. This proves particularly challenging ( albeit far more fixable ) in trading card games, than any video game. With new sets always coming out, the "game" is always fluctuating. So while a game at one point may be a "good game " and balanced, this can always change. Sets or cards can be released to imbalance the game, and while GENERALLY these changes do not go into the "degenerate" stage, sometimes, you have to wonder if they do.

I'll use a fairly direct parallel to the article. "exploitable bugs" are tactics which may not be intended, but are accessible to both players. They may not be easy to exploit, but can be adapted and played around and still leave in tact a solid game. These are most " best decks ". Most of the time people complain about decks/cards in TCGs, this is the case. ( actual "banning " is hard to suggest because new card pools enter and change the game every 3 months or so, and it takes awhile to actually decide if a card is really a true "problem" )

The one thing he did address is the concept of bugs which are player specific: IE, in a fighting game, if a bug is only exploitable to whoever is determined Player 1 over Player 2. This randomly assigned player has a huge edge off the bat over the other player. This is what we are now seeing with the BW change applied to the current card pool, almost to a T. Now, TCGs will always, inherently have this dilema. There will always be an edge to going either 1st or 2nd, depending on what handicaps are applied to both. This is unavoidable. In Chess, a game of NO luck, a very, very slight edge is placed to the player who plays White, as they get to go first.

Pokemon had struggled to try and "balance" the act of going first ever since the issue of the old Trapper combo was released. Having a player go first and give their opponent no hand was just silly. And it happened. A lot. Even Lass provided a brutal turn one play, and was exploited by the Lass Cleffa play after Neo's release. We have the same idea now, only worse. The standard " Cleffa + Lass t1, then Sneasel " approach was really brutal before. The difference between that Unlimited format and our current Modified one is that in Unlimited, due to the lower damage output ( it is common place for a player to now take 6 prizes in 6 turns, especially vs an opponent with a bad start ) and lack of real comeback ability, taking a few turns to " draw out of it " doesn't matter. You've lost the game because of how fast and powerful all of the formats decks are. Before, due to the slower, more attrition based aspect of Unlimited, a game could still be close. Not so much anymore.

Going first used to enable donks. It could be argued that going 2nd could too. Yet, despite the number of turn one kills and balance questioning " god starts" we see, the odds were still not that good. Yet people still objected to how imbalanced it is. And honestly? This kind of importance placed on who goes first or second IS pretty bad. it is one of the risks of a format being TOO fast and consistant. Only now, the odds of these starts sky rockets. Its a legitimate concern that has the potential to ruin the game for the rest of this season.

As someone who has remained dedicated to putting in a lot of time and effort playing not only this year, but every year, I hate to be rewarded with this type of format to play Nationals or Worlds under. I know a lot of people who are turned off by this FAR more than I am. I'll play whatever I'm given even if I object . I'll do the "smile and nod" acceptance route no matter how bad it is, even if I try to get it changed. But I know a lot of people who won't. Not doing anything leaves us with a degenerate game, and one I'm only playing because I can't bring myself not to. If I didn't already have a high enough rating to not realistically " back out" of the season there is no way I'd want to play under these rules. None at all. Its a shame that this issue is casting such a black cloud over a set I would normally be really excited over. =(

---------- Post added 04/12/2011 at 10:33 AM ----------

I forgot to address the idea of " playing to win " vs " spirit of the game".

These are, absolutely not, mutually exclusive. In fact, they aren't even remotely contradictory.

To me, since the fact that "spirit of the game" is literally undefinable in any concrete terms by a single person I've asked ( and I've asked many ) here is what I take it as. I'll break it down into major categories.

- Do not cheat
- Be kind and respectful to other players/staff/property

It could even be combined into the second one nearly exclusively, as cheating probably isn't very respectful to your opponent. As much as some people would like to argue, killing a players only basic on the first turn is not "cheating". And no, it isn't "disrespectful" either. There is nothing within the confines of any aspect of "spirit of the game " that I've had told to me that even remotely contradicts anything addressed by "Playing To Win".

I support the use and application of Spirit of the Game, but its primary purpose is to encourage players to have a good time and to help enforce anti-cheating and pro-sportsmanship qualities in players. It isn't used to try and enact impossible to enforce judge based judgment calls/opinions on black and white, easily read, clear rules set forth by the way the game is played. Its like a judge at a Chess tournament seeing a grandmaster use the Queen to do the turn 2 Checkmate on his novice opponent, then giving him a game loss for "unsportmanslike use of his queen " because it prevented his opponent from enjoying their match.
 
Chris, Rob, these last five posts are the most thoughtful, genuine, and timely bits of insight I've read yet on PokeGym. Thanks for sharing with the community.
 
I finally had time to read a few of Sirlin's articles. I have to think more about his "self-improvement" philosophy, but I very much understand his distinction between playing for fun and playing to win.

Playing for fun is what I've been doing so far.....I've been playing for a little more than a year, learning the various new cards and imagining my own combinations as I come across cards I haven't seen yet. But this would be all old news to the veterans, since almost all viable combinations have been thought of and tested already.

Now I have all of the cards I need in my collection, and can construct any deck of 60 cards I want. The real challenge now is mastering a deck, recognizing opposing decks, and being experienced enough to strategize and adapt on-the-fly like Ness and Pooka do so well.

At Nationals, I have a choice: play for fun, or play to win. Playing for fun would mean choosing one of the decks I've tried this year and giving it a go (rogue or archetype, doesn't matter). Playing to win, with the expected cardset and rules, would dictate a donk deck. There's really no choice when you Play to Win. The game we'll play at Nationals has no memory of what were the previous rules, or what sets will be legal after rotation. The game only knows the current set of rules that the players going to Indianapolis must abide by. If you want the best chance of winning that tournament, you play the deck(s) that statistically have the best chance of doing so. Maybe the deck is boring or broken, but if you're playing to win, that's what you do.

So if we fast forward and stipulate that EVERYONE in Indianapolis is playing to win with donk decks, the winner could still be decided by the initial coin flip. Which means I can beat Ness and Pooka if I go first. With this being Nationals and some people's World invites hanging in the balance, it's easy to see why no one is looking forward to that.
 
z-man said:
I can't say I agree with you Jimmy. The rule change will come most likely without a rotation. Even so, I can't agree to banning cards. Donking is very new to the game and (frankly), should rarely be a possibility unless the stars align to give you a riolu + fighting + heads against your opponent's Eevee (and even then... eh). I cannot agree, however, with banning cards. While I support having a less donky format, banning cards is not what I would like to see. The actual cards being banned are inconsequential. Banning Turn gives SP less options and makes it less of a top deck while banning Sableye makes the only one real deck go away (Sablock). Even so, I am opposed to the concept of banning more than I am to donking. Banning cards sets a precedent for a few things. First of all, banning cards allows a cord for the card designers (like in Yugioh). I foresee a shift in design philosophy for the card designers from what we are seeing in BW to "well if it is too good, it'll eventually get banned". That philosophy is what makes amazingly broken cards such as Yata Gurasu and Harpy's Featherduster. I would rather not give the developers that cord, so that they get cards right the first time while still worrying about the consequences of releasing the card. Moreover, banning cards now means that, in a few years time when we have a whole new set of decks dominating the format, there will be the precedent for having cards banned. When we have a new deck (let's call it GarRay :]) winning half of the states, people will call for getting that banned as well. When there is a precedent for banning cards, those claims will not be unfounded and will be more numerous (and equally annoying to those wanting to ban GG years ago).

Now then, if we were to ban cards, I think you hit the nail on the head. Sableye is a big loser as far as the format goes, and Poketurn does certainly help (although banning Poketurn will be terrible for SP). I honestly think that we are in a lose-lose situation by which we lose if we ban and we lose if we don't. The problem is trying to find the lesser of two evils. In my honest opinion, not banning is the lesser of the two evils. I will not enjoy playing tournaments that feature the new rules and our current cards, but we all have to white-knuckle through it. Unless there is a way to limit the effectiveness of donks (like how they did at LCQ), not much can be done about the format.
Click to expand...

Did not read the whole thread but look at Yugioh. Though its a broken game but banning cards a good idea. Yata and Featherduster were banned because it put a limit on the game. Chaos was banned and some other cards were just to powerful. Sure I was one of the people who did not like the ban list because I lost a lot of my powerful cards but it helped the game out a lot. Allowing people to try new stuff

Look at Pokemon. I know you can't compare it to Yugioh but cards like Tomb, Plume, SP Tool and some Pokemon are not good for the game. The limit on the format is bad. Its ether SP or Vileplume whatever. Banning Vileplume/ other powerful cards will help the format in the long run.

As for the spirit of the game. That died. The game is now Yugioh and filled with over priced cards...
 
I have to chime in and add my thanks for the thoughtful, valuable posts on this page of the thread. Great analysis. Your contribution to this thread and the Gym is appreciated.
 
I just don't get why they would allow the return of the use of trainers and supporters on the first turn rule. It just frustrates me to think that I might not even get to draw a freekin card if I go 2nd. Shoot, I might just scoop if the coin flip at the beginning puts me 2nd, with a hophip to start with.
There are going to be many sit down... shuffle... set up play.... 1st turn Collector, UXIE, BTS, Expert Belt, ...."GOOD GAME"s (lather, rinse, repeat) in the future.

When I play first as the rules are now, I usually dread not getting a 2nd turn, I don't get donked often, but I have been dealt my fair share.

The correct rule change should be: No one gets to use trainers or supporters on their first turn. That way both players can get one turn in and possible get more pokemon out or evolve so they cant get donked. I think this would make the game more...fair.
 
bobakitty said:
I just don't get why they would allow the return of the use of trainers and supporters on the first turn rule. It just frustrates me to think that I might not even get to draw a freekin card if I go 2nd. Shoot, I might just scoop if the coin flip at the beginning puts me 2nd, with a hophip to start with.
There are going to be many sit down... shuffle... set up play.... 1st turn Collector, UXIE, BTS, Expert Belt, ...."GOOD GAME"s (lather, rinse, repeat) in the future.

When I play first as the rules are now, I usually dread not getting a 2nd turn, I don't get donked often, but I have been dealt my fair share.

The correct rule change should be: No one gets to use trainers or supporters on their first turn. That way both players can get one turn in and possible get more pokemon out or evolve so they cant get donked. I think this would make the game more...fair.
Click to expand...

Maybe they can try the player that goes first can't attack.
 
I still like the Exxon rules. First player can play Trainers, but no Supporters (might have been other way round, can't remember exactly), and skipped his initial Draw. IMO, this is a better balance than "no TSS" or "all TSS" as it actually gives the first player something to do during their turn.
 
If someone has already suggested this, I apologize. I'm not trying to steal anyone's ideas.

The problem with Sableye is that it was created with one format in mind and it's now being introduced into a new format that unintentionally makes it too powerful. I am against banning any cards. My biggest problem with SP is not that they're too powerful. They were a cool idea introduced into the game. My problem is that they've been in the format for so long now. The reason sets rotate is to create a fluid format, but until SP is rotated in full or in part, it will still be used by many players. But I digress.

My solution for the Sableye is to give it an eratta. Rare candy was given an eratta because it became too powerful with the new rules in place. Why not eratta Sableye in the same way? The text should read something like this, "If this Pokemon is you active Pokemon at the beginning of the game, you go first. (If each players Active Pokemon has the Overeager Poke-Body, this power does nothing.) If you use this power, you may not play any Trainer cards on your first turn." Please note, it's referring to Trainer cards in the post B&W meaning of the term. Basically it'd be like playing the card with the old ruleset.

This doesn't fix all the problems with the new rules, but it does balance Sableye, which is what most of the outcry from the new rule has been about. It also fixes it in a way that is consistent with previous fixes and does not set any new precedences for P!P.
 
They should just rotate already, god damn it.

+ SP gone
+ Worst format ever prevented
+ New Format - More Fun? HGSS-On or something w/o Catcher for Nats/Worlds. Think about it!
- MD-AR gone

And please don't give me that "but so many cards will be out blahblah" argument. You know this game rotates set blocks. YOU HAD PLENTY OF TIME GETTING RID OF THOSE CARDS. I mean, isn't MD out since 2008?

It's time to move on.
 
Last edited:
I'd love them to go HGSS-on right now, but it won't happen.

I can see them MAYBE rotating before Worlds. That doesn't affect many people, and the people who are affected could cope no problem.

Doing a surprise rotation before BRs and Nats? Watch as 75% of Juniors fail deck check and their parents get really pissed off.
 
Honestly, but they're digging those holes every time they do something different then Japan.

I also don't see how it is even worth "playing" in a MD-BW Format anyway.
 
Gentlemen, gentlemen, there is a far bigger issue at hand here. 'Reguards'. One of you mod fellows fix that before I start tossing chairs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top