Creating a ban/restriction list for a more fun and strategic Pokemon TCG

[vaporeon]

Great post. I appreciate you posting construction criticism. Now we can get somewhere. Keep in mind that the list I posted are cards I think are a issue in the current format and could be a issue in the new format as well. Leafeon may not be a issue in this current format, but it may be a issue in the new format. Same with Charizard. I'll go in and respond to your post.

Well at least you do say that a few posts say why not, but I suppose, due to your blindness, the situation must be rectified. This has to be done so that even you can understand how this list is bogus and how the very idea is not fitting for this kind of card game. Well to be honest the idea of side decks and bans in general have been dealt with prior, but as you wished, as shown by the highlighted quote, the list you provided is about to receive a painful probing.

Banned- 0 Per Deck/Side Deck

G-Booster

This card is played in one deck that has not really dominated the game for an extended period of time. Sure an argument can be made that it was the BDIF, but not for overly long or by an overly large gap. This card also comes with a significant drawback, which is namely not being able to play other ace spec cards, such as Dowsing Machine, which is arguably stronger. (As a side note dowsing machine is conveniently not on the list despite being basically the undisputed most played ace spec in the format. Yeah it does not look good for this list off the bat)

We can't say because you can't use any other (better?) Ace Spec cards that its not a good card. It knocks out almost every card in the format, ignoring its ability or effects that would prevent the damage. The card is also somewhat immune to Tool Scrapper and Megaphone, since you can recover it with Shadow Triad. The turn you play it, you're taking 1 or 2 prizes. This is better than Dowsing Machine one may argue, since its exclusive to one Pokemon, that can attack cheaply.

M Charizard- Flash Fire 013,069,107,108

No form of Mega Charizard EX has been seen in any serious competitive deck. Have a look at nationals results from around the world. Yveltal variants, Virgen and Plasma among others are the decks that are doing well. Despite this you want to ban Mega Charizard? Come on now.

For the format Im trying to create, M Charizard could be a problem, since it has no real drawbacks. The ban list tries to deal with the current and new format. It needs to be tested though.

Charizard EX- Flash Fire 012

The idea of a ban list is to correct the problems in a game, at least I presume, though considering how this list looks, I doubt that. It seems like you want to cater the game to suit you, not actually be the best it can be. That being said, where has Charizard EX ever been game breaking? Answer: No where. Next.

A ban list is suppose to do two things. The first thing is to remove problem cards from the format. The second thing is to look at what could be a threat to the new format. I believe Charizard EX (Combustion Wing) could be that threat. Again, it needs to be tested to know for sure but a card I think could be a problem.

Black Kyurem- Plasma Storm- 095

For once a card you could make an argument for... in the past. This card game has a trend to try and correct itself with the addition of new sets. Of course it does not always succeed, but it attempts to do so. And what do you know, it worked this time. Druddigon makes it so that this card is no longer a problem.

The reason for this is because the current game expects players to have all these tech to deal with decks. Some decks can afford to run the tech because they have the space to do so, however, most do not. This ban list is suppose to work with the idea of a side deck. Perhaps a ban is too harsh when a player could add FLF Druddigon 070 to their side deck. Perhaps this Black Kyurem is better at 1 per deck. You sill have a comeback factor, that would be good for that one game but you risk Druddigon being sided against you. Risk reward right? Again, its worth testing.

Sableye Dark Explorers

One of the best card ever printed, sure. However once again the game has corrected itself. No serious deck runs more than one sableye. I mean when I won nationals a few weeks back, I played one sableye. Never did I use it in a game that I won. This card is so broken. /sarcasm.

I also made it to the final with a Vaporeon/Pidgeot deck when Gardy/Gallade was a big deck, so that mean the format was not as bad as people say it was right? Sure, I was the odd one out, not being hit by Psychic Lock since I did not use abilities, or not rely on them. You were the odd one out of the rest. Sure there were also other who played 2 Sableye. Some play 3. I prefer 2 myself but if I needed space, Sableye is a good option to remove. Perhaps Sableye is not useful in the mirror but it is against all other decks that cant keep up. Its a really good tool that rewards the player using it. Is 1 prize worth me losing 4 to laser, hammer and dark patch?

Crushing Hammer

This list is getting repetitive. Hammer spam was a thing for a while and not really overpowered ever, but it is barely viable now. You want to kill it? Kill a tier 2 deck for diversity. Please tell me you understand how messed up that is.

There are currently 3 trainers in the format that discard energy, one of which I forgot. The card punishes decks that rely on single attachments. Perhaps a hard ban on it is rough. I say test it at one, along with Team Flare Grunt and Enhanced Hammer and see what happens. This card does not hurt your dark patch and deluge but thats not the only play in the game.[/B]

Mewtwo EX

When was Mewtwo EX last a major major threat? Oh let me think, I suppose one year ago. I mean sure it was decent after that, but never really best card in format since then. Ban it to 0 copies per deck? Smrat.

Mewtwo is still a very good card. With all the energy acceleration, Mewtwo will also be a problem in the new format. With cards like Muscle Band, it hits harder. Its also too aggressive towards evolution decks.

Yveltal EX

The single handed best card in format at the moment. Best card ever printed? Maybe, but probably not. One of the best offensive cards ever printed? Definitely. However once again consider why would you ban this card to 0 copies in a deck. No deck could play 1 Yveltal EX and would be broken because of it. However if there is a single card in the game that deserves a nerf, it is this and hypnotoxic laser. (Side note: This is not bias against these cards because I hate them per se, I won nationals playing both in high quantities of my own free will, if I have free will, but that is not part of this discussion)

This is the same reason for the ban on Mewtwo. Yveltal EX has base 20 damage PLUS 20 more for each energy on both active Pokemon. Yveltal is also a dark Pokemon with access to Dark Patch and DCE. The big dragon bird can deal 100 damage on its own with a Muscle Band and 3 energy. Once it scored that knockout, its another DCE, putting it at 140. Unless your opponent is playing a Mewtwo or Yveltal, you just won. I dont know about you but I dont like trading 4 prizes to get 2. Then again, you prefer that trade right? Sure its biased on both ends but what is better for the game?

Dark Claw

Let's ban Dark Claw entirely, but not ban Muscle Band entirely. Why? Hint: Dark Claw is 100% outclassed and essentially a worthless card now, except for possibly better artwork in an entirely dark deck. That warrants a ban. Suuuuuure.

The only reason for this ban is because of Muscle Band. I want to keep it at 2 to help reduce damage of attack. If I keep Dark Claw at 2 or 4, giving dark decks the 4 to 6 "muscle bands", then whats the point of the ban to began with? This way all decks have access to a max of 2 muscle band.

Let's take a break here and notice that there are so far 0-1 cards that should be limited. Good job.

To be fair, you have not really listed a justified reason why these should not be banned, other than 2 we could agree on.

Limited- 1 Per Deck/Side Deck

Professor Juniper/ Professor Sycamore

Nothing about these cards is inherently overpowered. I have never lost a game because my opponent played a Juniper. Seriously looking back at history, this is not even one of the best supporters ever made. Sure it is good, but Collector, Roseanne, Mentor, Cyrus and Castaway to name a few a pretty much better. And there was no need to ban them. Get the point?

Hard search will always be good, since it takes out the random factor or unknown draw and shuffle draw. However, in my game play experience, Juniper lead me into the needed, or the opponent into what they needed. Same thing with those early Virbank Lasers with Sableye leads, getting 3+ energy into play on the first turn. For the reason Pot of Greed was banned in Yugioh is the same reason its restricted here and its the after effect of the draw. Its not outright banned... You can still use one but you now have to use other draw options. Thats not a bad thing, right? By the way, Roseanne and Castaway were personal favorites of mine. Not overpowered because back then, the game was less dependent on trainers to win like today

Enhanced Hammer

Hey let's ban a nerfed Lost Remover to one copy per deck. Tell me you see how that is so stupid.

The idea is to not completely crush a deck that uses special energy. With a side deck, a player could use 4 E hammers, 4 Flare Grunts and C.Hammer to beat them. Tell me how that is fair? You get 1 E. Hammer. Want to use it again, you have Dowsing Machine. You also have the 1 Team Flare Grunt if you want to use your supporter. The idea is to limit aggressive trainers.

Hypnotoxic Laser

Uuuuuuh a second kind-of almost legitimate card to nerf. Nothing to say here. HTL is strong and I suppose if one wanted, one could test it with some for of restriction. However there is no real need for that as the game has been made with HTL in mind, so other decks not playing HTL now, would get a massive boost if this were banned. That is of course unless you nerf them too. Wait a second... that is exactly what you are doing. Meddling with the format so that it is how you want it to by making it worse. Lower everything except a select few from a 100 to a 50. Does nothing, but help the select few. You should become a politician. Oh wait never mind, every suggestion you make is unpopular. Go become a republican.

How to tackle this post... First let me start by saying I DONT want to nerf or errata, rather create a format that can play alongside standard, with more competitive rule. HTL was NOT made with this format in mind. XY cards, save a few are NOT broken in an XY on format. BW Format ruined the game (subjective I know). XY rules were changed WITH BW in mind, so now we have odd card interactions. Without BW in the format, the list changes but its here and will be here for who knows how long. Also your last statment was unneeded since Im trying to do what I think is good for the game, which is something republicans would not do. If anything, most post in this thread are pretty conservative in nature, while Im trying to make it fun for everyone.

Pokemon Catcher

This card is not broken at all anymore after the nerf of a coin flip. Sure it brings luck, but it is not broken. A card game will have luck. Coin flips are a part of this game. Get out of here.

Thinking about this a bit more, perhaps this being at 1 is a little harsh. However anything more than 2 is a bit too much. With Lysandre in the format, 4 effects like this in a deck with trainers is still too aggressive. I say test it but 4 of is a no go to began with. Remember the reason Pokemon Catcher was made to began with. Reversal...

Lysandre

This is a supporter of a previously great card, making it balanced. In the history of this game the Gust of Wind effect has been used to great success, bar Catcher no flip/Gust of Wind and arguably Reversal/Catcher with flip. Did I just contradict myself? No. Catcher with flip is not a ban worthy offense, as it does not break the game, however it is not a success.

While Catcher may be a different story with its nerf, Im pretty adamant on this card being a one of, supporter or not. Still it should be tested to know for sure. Most players would agree they would like less random effect in the game. I think the Catcher nerf was pointless but prove to me the powers at be dont know what their doing. I always though players should be on a testing team before cards are released.

Klinklang (Plasma Steel)

Not played. Next.

In this new format, It may be a problem. Plasmaklang and Aromatisse is a thing you know. Think long term for a while.

Energy Retrieval

Broken. So broken. I can't believe how broken this card is. I mean my opponents forfeit whenever I have two energy in my hand.

Did you just stop debating? Im asking for real feed back here. I opt to limit this to one because of decks that accelerate energy from the hand. They can still make their plays but they would be as often and will need to be used at the right time. Remember, skillful plays are wanted here, not brainless.

Superior Energy Retrieval

Above on steroids, but nowhere near being broken. Cards can abuse this card and the previous card, but even they cannot abuse them in a broken fashion, but even if they could, it would not make this and the above card broken.

Ability based energy acceleration love these kind of cards. They can still use it, just only 1. Between, Cilan, Energy retrieval, SER and Professors Letter, that 4 cards (8 max) that can fish for energy. Remember, in this format, cards like this can be overpowered.

Professor Letter

Great card. Broken? No. Reason? Two energies provides consistency, however it does not instant win you the game or give a massive unfair advantage.

Its not broken by any means but it is too good for decks that accelerate from the hand or discard pile. You can still use one, and according to your Sableye, "good" players only need one anyway, right?

Leafeon -Plasma Freeze- 011

No winning deck bar two have even played Leafeon. Only one of these decks really did well. It did not dominate the format. It did not have Leafeon front and center. Leafeon is not broken and no four Leafeon in play is not an automatic win. Come back to reality.

Like I said before, its very good with other big hitters that do large damage for a single energy. In the format Im trying to create, it will also be too good, even more so than the current format. You can still use it, but only 1 in this format. It could be tested to see if more are needed but based on results from other card games, effect like this are either banned or limited to 1.

Reality check: At best you have listed 2 cards that could be nerfed, not banned, but I'll grant you that. 2/19. Great list.

Again, its not my place to nerf cards but create a format that can exist alongside Standard.
Limited- 2 Per Deck/Side Deck

Aromatisse (Fairy Transfer)

Has won no nationals if I recall correctly. If it has, at least not many. Not broken. Not over centralizing. Not ban worthy.

Winning a nationals has nothing to do with it. Sure it helps for data but thats not the end all be all. Perhaps Aromatisse does not need to be looked at. Perhaps the issue is with Max Potion. If for say, Max potion were banned or limited to 1, Aromatisse would become less powerful because its healing options are very limited. I say test it to know for sure but I think Max Potion is my line of reasoning for this.

Emboar (Infernal Fandango)

A good card no doubt. Has it dominated the format? Yeah, thought so.

Again, Im thinking for both formats with the use of a side deck as well. Its still a good card in this new format so putting it at 2 is still good and gives options. Fire also have 2 Blacksmith to help with that. Remember that thing I said about after effects and such.

Blastoise (Deluge)

This deck was possibly BDIF for a while. Then it was nerfed with things like Druddigon and it is no longer an issue. Do not kill it further. You cannot create fun and strategy by limiting decent (read: not broken) archetypes.

Read the comment about. Also, Druddigon does not beat this deck.

Keldeo EX

Again is not a problem, unless it's checks are removed. Oh wait, you want to ban Mewtwo and Yveltal? Why on Earth? A game has been designed by its creators in a way that would not be broken (and it currently is not broken) so banning something could upset the situation as it does here. In the real world this card is not an issue.

Its clear to me the card creators dont know "good" card design. It seems these cards are not tested at all (the nerf, erratas and rule changes would suggest this). Mewtwo, would be its only real check if we look at cards all decks could use but the deck being hit means it needs to save resources to score these big KO. They would need other attackers since Im sure they wont only want 2 Keldeo. In this new format. Guess what, Blastoise uses Mewtwo and Yveltal better than most decks.

Garbodor

Garbodor blocks abilities in a way that requires a stage 1 and a tool, which your opponent can remove. How is this broken?

Its not broken but in this new format, someone could find a way to break it. Most players only use 2 anyway. With a side deck, perhaps it being a 2 is a bit small since there are side deck options but Garbodor is a card that can easily over centralize the meta. Gardy/Gallade, Luxchump and others did this. Sure there are ways to stop this but it forces players to either play it or play a counter and thats not much fun, right?

Trevenant

Trainer lock is annoying, but Trevenant has not dominated the game or won anything significant or done anything seriously note worthy. Not broken.

The issue here is with over dominate strategies. Unless you're playing a dark deck, you wont deal with this easily. Garbodor does not stop it and has no hard, reliable counters except Absol, which most decks can't use. Its normally better to stop something like this at the source. its not as bad as Keystone Seal but it can be a issue in this new format. If a nerf or errata is to be issued, it would be for Absol attack cost to require a DCE instead, but thats a bit over my pay grade. Testing is required though!

Dark patch

A third candidate for something that could be nerfed as it has created a deck that has been on top of the game for a long time (Side note: On top, not dominated). This, like Yveltal and HTL, is something one could consider a nerf on. Except that it will be rotated in a month and a half. On top of that it has not stood on top of the game alone, except during 2012 Worlds.

This is a wrong statement. The deck has been on the top since Dark Explorers. Any counter the deck was though to have did not work. It got stronger with lasers and Yveltal and thats because of how usable this card is... Even more so with Sableye. With a extended format being a possibility (BW-On sanctioned), we get to see these cards around longer.

Blacksmith

Has yet to prove any level of overpowered characteristics? Therefore the logical conclusion is to ban it. Seems logic.

Trainer based energy acceleration has always been a issue. its a supporter, sure but a strong one. In this new format, Im sure it would be abused with Emboar. its not banned because its not broken but is very abuseable. Sure it needs to be tested but there is no reason to believe the same thing that happened with dark parch wont happen here. Pal pad is a thing too.

Colress Machine

Is speed Lugia a problem for the game? Answer: No. Is a deck that abuses this a problem for the game? Answer: No. Is this used in one or maybe two decks? Answer: Yes. Does this make it broken? Answer: No.

It speeds up Zapdos, Articuno, Moltres, Kyurem, Deoxyx, Absol... all Plasma Pokemon. its not broken by any means but its trainer based energy acceleration. See the theme here, they are all at 2. Go nuts with Dowsing machine though. The last 3 are used in top decks by the way, for the just in case you want to dog on Zapdos

Muscle Band

Oh here we are. Dark Claw > Muscle Band my friends. Dark Claw > Muscle Band. Now tell me. Which deck in the format gets an unfair advantage from this card? Oh wait, every deck can play it and no deck can play it in such a way that is greatly better than at least a few other decks. Not broken.

These card contribute to the OHKO factor the game has. I dont thin it needs to be banned. I feel its needed but it is too good. You have 2 now, and will need to play them when the time is right. Every deck has 2 so nothing is unfair, unless you wanted to use 4 dark claw as well.

Silver Bangle

You complain about overpowered EX cards. Then you ban a card that balances the situation. What do we call that? You decide.

This was decided on because of the side deck. The overpowered EX won't be around so no problem there. This is to prevent the non overpowered EX from being turned into lunch meat. You still get 2, just cant abuse them.

Max Potion

No deck abuses this card. No deck. None at all.

I can name a few that do and will in the new format but look up at the Aromatisse post.

N

A great supporter no doubt. Much needed in this format as no searching supporters or draw Pokémon exist. It is vital for consistency. It also brings in a form of deck management for the late game, which is skill, which falls under the category of strategy. You want to make this more strategic. Your plan to do so: Step 1: Remove strategy. Step 2: God knows. Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit. (Side note: This plan is so bad that a mere 3 step plan without ??? or god knows would not have sufficed.)

Well look at God's Flood. A lot of good that did for the all powerful creator right? "I know the world will be bad, so I will flood it, knowing full well it wont work" Back on topic, N at 2 is still perfectly fine. You still get your "skill" play but you now have to conserve your resources. Fun right? On top of that, N being at 2 brings less disruption to the game. Your opponent will no longer get N'ed out of the game so now we have plays were people can setup without the fear of losing everything. Want to disrupt your opponent, use Red Card with your 2 N. It should be tested to know for sure though. Wanna help with that?

That was that. How many even debatable cards were there, when I am being generous? 3? Out of? 32. 3/32.

I don't know why, but you seem to want to ban most playable cards even though they are not breaking the game in anyway. Good does not equal a ban worthy offense. Great does not equal a ban worthy offense. Playable does not equal a ban worthy offense. The only thing that equal a ban worthy offense is if something is broken and arguably you have mentioned 3 cards that are exceptionally good, but not broken necessarily.

I only have a handful of cards on the banned list. Those cards I feel are truly a problem with the format. Same for most things at 1. But the big thing here is to test the list to know for sure. Also, what do you mean by nerf? Seems you're using in many different ways.

Returning back to what I said. You are wrong. I just showed why. Now you say you play Zapdos and that this list represents what you think is broken. This qualifies people to make judgements about how you play the game. I will refrain from doing so as this post was quite aggressive, but how could it not be? Otherwise it would have been much too boring to type up. As a final side note, the language in this post is overly crude due to the length and time I typed it, as well as the fact that it was so repetitive due to the nature of the task.

You used Ad hominem most of your post here, made jokes most of the time and did not even attempt argue most points, using your personal bias to this. You appeal to authority to justify your reason. You won a tournament, good for you. Guess what, I have also won tournaments and done so with rogues so does that make me a better player than you? Also, I use Zapdos... Sure but does that make me a bad player? It kills Yveltal in 1 hit so it must be a good card but then again Yveltal kills Yveltal in 1 hit too so it must a bad card. Lets make things clear. I also play Yveltal/Darkrai, Blastoise/Keldeo, Plasma, Genesect, Pidgeot and the more fun tier 2/3 decks. I play this game just as well as the best of them. I can see more than one side of the game and I truly think what Im trying to do is for the better of the game. Sure the list needed to be tested and help is needed with that.

Still thanks for the post. You did more than most here.

 

[Axew]

good cards are just a reality, and banning a set of good cards will only make a lower tier into the good cards

 

[EricDent]

So you are creating some weird format, and decide that these cards need banned because of it?

 

[Freze]

G-Booster

We can't say because you can't use any other (better?) Ace Spec cards that its not a good card. It knocks out almost every card in the format, ignoring its ability or effects that would prevent the damage. The card is also somewhat immune to Tool Scrapper and Megaphone, since you can recover it with Shadow Triad. The turn you play it, you're taking 1 or 2 prizes. This is better than Dowsing Machine one may argue, since its exclusive to one Pokemon, that can attack cheaply.

But hey, it is a good card. However it is made worse by not being allowed to play different Ace Spec cards. It knocks out every card in the format, with a major cost for even playing the card. Not to mention in-game cost of discarding. The turn you play it you get 1 or 2 prizes. Is that a bad thing? Answer: No. Once again, not ban worthy.

M Charizard- Flash Fire 013,069,107,108

For the format Im trying to create, M Charizard could be a problem, since it has no real drawbacks. The ban list tries to deal with the current and new format. It needs to be tested though.

That is only because you try to neuter every possibly good deck in the format, so that bad decks, with fewer moving pieces, are better. Fewer moving pieces leads to less possibilities, which in turn leads to less strategy. The very strategy that this list is trying to promote

Charizard EX- Flash Fire 012

A ban list is suppose to do two things. The first thing is to remove problem cards from the format. The second thing is to look at what could be a threat to the new format. I believe Charizard EX (Combustion Wing) could be that threat. Again, it needs to be tested to know for sure but a card I think could be a problem.

Again the only reason this card could be a problem, is due to you disrupting a game that is working. If a game has a large number of very powerful cards, much more powerful than ever before, it does not mean the format is broken. This is because they keep each other in check. This is the case now. The only way this becomes a threat is if you mess up this balance by coming in and removing nigh all powerful cards to create a weaker, albeit still balanced game, with fewer moving pieces. This makes the game worse.

Sableye Dark Explorers

I also made it to the final with a Vaporeon/Pidgeot deck when Gardy/Gallade was a big deck, so that mean the format was not as bad as people say it was right? Sure, I was the odd one out, not being hit by Psychic Lock since I did not use abilities, or not rely on them. You were the odd one out of the rest. Sure there were also other who played 2 Sableye. Some play 3. I prefer 2 myself but if I needed space, Sableye is a good option to remove. Perhaps Sableye is not useful in the mirror but it is against all other decks that cant keep up. Its a really good tool that rewards the player using it. Is 1 prize worth me losing 4 to laser, hammer and dark patch?

Okay let me be clearer. Almost no one in the tournament played more than one sableye and those who did play it, did not use it much. I was not the odd one out. Look at what, for example Pooka (not appealing to authority, but rather a deck builder as an example), who built a dark deck. Contained one sableye and it was not the focus of the deck. Winner of other nationals? Same thing one sableye, is the norm and many are saying zero would be the better play. Not due to a ban, but due to the speed of the game. Why are you against an aggressive game? Not sarcasm or an attack. Seriously, why? There is no reason for this in my eyes.

Crushing Hammer

There are currently 3 trainers in the format that discard energy, one of which I forgot. The card punishes decks that rely on single attachments. Perhaps a hard ban on it is rough. I say test it at one, along with Team Flare Grunt and Enhanced Hammer and see what happens. This card does not hurt your dark patch and deluge but thats not the only play in the game.

Again, against aggressive, but then dislike disruption. What is left? Manual attachments? That is the worst turn this game could take, because it would likely lower the amount of moving pieces significantly. This would make the game simpler than it already is.

Mewtwo EX

Mewtwo is still a very good card. With all the energy acceleration, Mewtwo will also be a problem in the new format. With cards like Muscle Band, it hits harder. Its also too aggressive towards evolution decks.

All the energy acceleration. You are banning that as well or nerfing it significantly. (Side note: Nerf means to make worse, in any way.) Aggressive is bad? Why? Not entirely killed energy acceleration is used in evolution decks. Simultaneously too strong against evolution decks, despite the very deck that would abuse it according to you, is an evolution deck.

Yveltal EX

This is the same reason for the ban on Mewtwo. Yveltal EX has base 20 damage PLUS 20 more for each energy on both active Pokemon. Yveltal is also a dark Pokemon with access to Dark Patch and DCE. The big dragon bird can deal 100 damage on its own with a Muscle Band and 3 energy. Once it scored that knockout, its another DCE, putting it at 140. Unless your opponent is playing a Mewtwo or Yveltal, you just won. I dont know about you but I dont like trading 4 prizes to get 2. Then again, you prefer that trade right? Sure its biased on both ends but what is better for the game?

Once again the only possible problem Pokémon in the format. Yes it does create awkward situations. However one can combat Yveltal positively, by using, for example Raichu. Raichu gets a positive trade. It's also an evolution, which you seem to like. As you mentioned, both another Yveltal or Mewtwo can also respond. There you have 3 good responses to an Yveltal. The game should not be so bad as to have 20 responses to the best card in format. That would be a very boring game.

Dark Claw

The only reason for this ban is because of Muscle Band. I want to keep it at 2 to help reduce damage of attack. If I keep Dark Claw at 2 or 4, giving dark decks the 4 to 6 "muscle bands", then whats the point of the ban to began with? This way all decks have access to a max of 2 muscle band.

No serious dark deck currently plays more than 3 Muscle band. In this weird, unnecessary and worse format of yours, who knows. Also not every deck should have the same resources to use. This brings variety and skill to the game. Also you kill dark, by removing Yveltal and Dark Patch, so why the need to kill it further?

Limited- 1 Per Deck/Side Deck

Professor Juniper/ Professor Sycamore

Hard search will always be good, since it takes out the random factor or unknown draw and shuffle draw. However, in my game play experience, Juniper lead me into the needed, or the opponent into what they needed. Same thing with those early Virbank Lasers with Sableye leads, getting 3+ energy into play on the first turn. For the reason Pot of Greed was banned in Yugioh is the same reason its restricted here and its the after effect of the draw. Its not outright banned... You can still use one but you now have to use other draw options. Thats not a bad thing, right? By the way, Roseanne and Castaway were personal favorites of mine. Not overpowered because back then, the game was less dependent on trainers to win like today

Trainer dependence to win was less then? Well okay yes, but cessation crystal could win matches easily, in for example a Blissey deck. However that is not the point. Having access to the cards in your deck (unreliable mind you) is a good thing. This is because if not the game would be so much slower and less skill dependent as you could use cards, but you just don't have access to them

Enhanced Hammer

The idea is to not completely crush a deck that uses special energy. With a side deck, a player could use 4 E hammers, 4 Flare Grunts and C.Hammer to beat them. Tell me how that is fair? You get 1 E. Hammer. Want to use it again, you have Dowsing Machine. You also have the 1 Team Flare Grunt if you want to use your supporter. The idea is to limit aggressive trainers.

Why? Because you want to?

Hypnotoxic Laser

How to tackle this post... First let me start by saying I DONT want to nerf or errata, rather create a format that can play alongside standard, with more competitive rule. HTL was NOT made with this format in mind. XY cards, save a few are NOT broken in an XY on format. BW Format ruined the game (subjective I know). XY rules were changed WITH BW in mind, so now we have odd card interactions. Without BW in the format, the list changes but its here and will be here for who knows how long. Also your last statment was unneeded since Im trying to do what I think is good for the game, which is something republicans would not do. If anything, most post in this thread are pretty conservative in nature, while Im trying to make it fun for everyone.

It was a joke... On another note, no HTL was not made with this format in mind, however this format was made with HTL in mind. This can be clearly seen from Virizion EX and the new fairy card with the same effect. It works out in a balanced way. The only bad thing about HTL is the sleep aspect. The poison is fine and good.

Pokemon Catcher

Thinking about this a bit more, perhaps this being at 1 is a little harsh. However anything more than 2 is a bit too much. With Lysandre in the format, 4 effects like this in a deck with trainers is still too aggressive. I say test it but 4 of is a no go to began with. Remember the reason Pokemon Catcher was made to began with. Reversal...

Why is aggressiveness bad?

Lysandre

While Catcher may be a different story with its nerf, Im pretty adamant on this card being a one of, supporter or not. Still it should be tested to know for sure. Most players would agree they would like less random effect in the game. I think the Catcher nerf was pointless but prove to me the powers at be dont know what their doing. I always though players should be on a testing team before cards are released.

This removes the random effect. Wouldn't that be good? Why limit it then? Most players do not play many Catcher anymore due to a more skillful and less luck reliant card being available. Limit this card then? Why?

Klinklang (Plasma Steel)

In this new format, It may be a problem. Plasmaklang and Aromatisse is a thing you know. Think long term for a while.

Same reason as I wrote for Charizard.

Energy Retrieval

Did you just stop debating? Im asking for real feed back here. I opt to limit this to one because of decks that accelerate energy from the hand. They can still make their plays but they would be as often and will need to be used at the right time. Remember, skillful plays are wanted here, not brainless.

Energy acceleration is not a bad thing. It has been around for ages because it works. It has shown itself to be a good force in the game. Why limit it?

Superior Energy Retrieval

Ability based energy acceleration love these kind of cards. They can still use it, just only 1. Between, Cilan, Energy retrieval, SER and Professors Letter, that 4 cards (8 max) that can fish for energy. Remember, in this format, cards like this can be overpowered.

These are only overpowered because you remove the checks to them, making the game be played on a lower skill level. Again not all decks should have same cards. Some decks use card better than others and that is perfectly okay.

Professor Letter

Its not broken by any means but it is too good for decks that accelerate from the hand or discard pile. You can still use one, and according to your Sableye, "good" players only need one anyway, right?

If it is not broken, why limit it? Once again, different decks are better at using different things. Deoxys is too good for decks that use Plasma Pokémon to attack. Exactly the same. And the response should be and is a resounding, no

Limited- 2 Per Deck/Side Deck

Aromatisse (Fairy Transfer)

Winning a nationals has nothing to do with it. Sure it helps for data but thats not the end all be all. Perhaps Aromatisse does not need to be looked at. Perhaps the issue is with Max Potion. If for say, Max potion were banned or limited to 1, Aromatisse would become less powerful because its healing options are very limited. I say test it to know for sure but I think Max Potion is my line of reasoning for this.

If a card is not over centralizing and format breaking, as the nationals records clearly show, why limit it? Let's stop it from using healing cards, take away options and take away skill.

Emboar (Infernal Fandango)

Again, Im thinking for both formats with the use of a side deck as well. Its still a good card in this new format so putting it at 2 is still good and gives options. Fire also have 2 Blacksmith to help with that. Remember that thing I said about after effects and such.

A serious thing to say is that, no one here knows how this new format would be. This is because you are changing so much, the effects are impossible to know. Think similar to a knew untested medicine. Of course you could say that testing is required. Do the testing, document it and present it. Also do it with many ban lists, preferably as small as possible as then the effects of every card can be known. However sorry to say, one person testing is not enough. Nor is one league. You need the best players to test this. Obviously this will not happen, but that would be the only way. (Side note: That is not an appeal to authority. It just means that the testing should be done by people who know the game, not by a Zapdos player)

Blastoise (Deluge)

Also, Druddigon does not beat this deck.

Not alone, but with friends, like Mewtwo, which conveniently you want to ban. Why remove all checks to something to make something else broken. This cycle continues. Why? (Side note: Do not compare this to ****** OU, as an example, the nature of the games are entirely different and the amount of time, effort and skill being put in by the creators is in, not a different ball park, but different galaxy.)

Keldeo EX

Its clear to me the card creators dont know "good" card design. It seems these cards are not tested at all (the nerf, erratas and rule changes would suggest this). Mewtwo, would be its only real check if we look at cards all decks could use but the deck being hit means it needs to save resources to score these big KO. They would need other attackers since Im sure they wont only want 2 Keldeo. In this new format. Guess what, Blastoise uses Mewtwo and Yveltal better than most decks.

Blastoise used Yveltal terribly. It might use it better than worthless manual attachment decks, but those have not been what Pokémon is about for a long time. Blastoise uses these well, but so do other decks and other options to limit Blastoise exist, such as Garbodor, Leafeon (which was used at one point, but not really worth it anymore, also Leafeon is not broken) and Druddigon.

Garbodor

Its not broken but in this new format, someone could find a way to break it. Most players only use 2 anyway. With a side deck, perhaps it being a 2 is a bit small since there are side deck options but Garbodor is a card that can easily over centralize the meta. Gardy/Gallade, Luxchump and others did this. Sure there are ways to stop this but it forces players to either play it or play a counter and thats not much fun, right?

Ban or limit only after it has broken the game. Do not nuke it beforehand. Play it or play something that beats it. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. This is exactly what you should do for every single card in the game, that is if you want to win.

Trevenant

The issue here is with over dominate strategies. Unless you're playing a dark deck, you wont deal with this easily. Garbodor does not stop it and has no hard, reliable counters except Absol, which most decks can't use. Its normally better to stop something like this at the source. its not as bad as Keystone Seal but it can be a issue in this new format. If a nerf or errata is to be issued, it would be for Absol attack cost to require a DCE instead, but thats a bit over my pay grade. Testing is required though!

Dominating strategies, that in its current incarnation has not dominated? Previously dominating cards, with similar effects, gives reason to ban this? Also an attacking Trevenant is terrible. It is a joke. The only viable Trevenant so far is Trevenant/Accelgor, an evolution lock deck. Not putting words in your mouth, tell me if I'm wrong, but you probably don't like that either.

Dark patch

This is a wrong statement. The deck has been on the top since Dark Explorers. Any counter the deck was though to have did not work. It got stronger with lasers and Yveltal and thats because of how usable this card is... Even more so with Sableye. With a extended format being a possibility (BW-On sanctioned), we get to see these cards around longer.

It has been on top since then. Yes. However I did say on top alone. The only time it was on top alone was Worlds 2012. Pay attention to the word alone. And even now it does not seem to be on top alone. It is the most successful and most played. However decks like Virgen/Raichu stop dark decks pretty hard.

Blacksmith

Trainer based energy acceleration has always been a issue. its a supporter, sure but a strong one. In this new format, Im sure it would be abused with Emboar. its not banned because its not broken but is very abuseable. Sure it needs to be tested but there is no reason to believe the same thing that happened with dark parch wont happen here. Pal pad is a thing too.

Energy acceleration in any form has barely been an issue ever. Dark Patch is maybe the first trainer based energy acceleration that has been strong forever. Emboar has no reason to play Blacksmith. Wastes a supporter and does not speed Emboar up. Also it is a supporter. Very much reason to believe it won't be as good as Dark Patch unless some major abuser comes in a future set.

Colress Machine

It speeds up Zapdos, Articuno, Moltres, Kyurem, Deoxyx, Absol... all Plasma Pokemon. its not broken by any means but its trainer based energy acceleration. See the theme here, they are all at 2. Go nuts with Dowsing machine though. The last 3 are used in top decks by the way, for the just in case you want to dog on Zapdos

Different decks use different cards. The problem? The is no problem. It is not unfair to have cards that are deck specific as long as each deck that needs them has their own and those that don't need them actually don't need them.

Muscle Band

These card contribute to the OHKO factor the game has. I dont thin it needs to be banned. I feel its needed but it is too good. You have 2 now, and will need to play them when the time is right. Every deck has 2 so nothing is unfair, unless you wanted to use 4 dark claw as well.¨

OHKO factor is bad? Why? Especially in Bo3 50min. Every deck has 4. Unfair? No.

Silver Bangle

This was decided on because of the side deck. The overpowered EX won't be around so no problem there. This is to prevent the non overpowered EX from being turned into lunch meat. You still get 2, just cant abuse them.

Repeating. Lower the game to a level where it is simpler and has fewer moving parts. This is a trend. No card abuses Silver Bangle really. Kyurem uses it. Not abuse.

Max Potion

I can name a few that do and will in the new format but look up at the Aromatisse post.

It uses it, not abuse.

N

Well look at God's Flood. A lot of good that did for the all powerful creator right? "I know the world will be bad, so I will flood it, knowing full well it wont work" Back on topic, N at 2 is still perfectly fine. You still get your "skill" play but you now have to conserve your resources. Fun right? On top of that, N being at 2 brings less disruption to the game. Your opponent will no longer get N'ed out of the game so now we have plays were people can setup without the fear of losing everything. Want to disrupt your opponent, use Red Card with your 2 N. It should be tested to know for sure though. Wanna help with that?

N is a major reason why you must conserve resources. Conserve Junipers, Bicycles, Patches, Machines, Lasers, Ace Specs possibly, the list is endless. Now you want us only to conserve N? Why? Why is disruption bad? Aggressive is bad. Disruption is bad. What is good? Do not say pure manual attachment. It lowers the game to a less skill-intensive level, as the creators of the game are aware. N out of the game is fine. It prevents someone from over-extending.

I only have a handful of cards on the banned list. Those cards I feel are truly a problem with the format. Same for most things at 1. But the big thing here is to test the list to know for sure. Also, what do you mean by nerf? Seems you're using in many different ways.

Nerf=Make something worse, in any way.

You used Ad hominem most of your post here, made jokes most of the time and did not even attempt argue most points, using your personal bias to this. You appeal to authority to justify your reason. You won a tournament, good for you. Guess what, I have also won tournaments and done so with rogues so does that make me a better player than you? Also, I use Zapdos... Sure but does that make me a bad player? It kills Yveltal in 1 hit so it must be a good card but then again Yveltal kills Yveltal in 1 hit too so it must a bad card. Lets make things clear. I also play Yveltal/Darkrai, Blastoise/Keldeo, Plasma, Genesect, Pidgeot and the more fun tier 2/3 decks. I play this game just as well as the best of them. I can see more than one side of the game and I truly think what Im trying to do is for the better of the game. Sure the list needed to be tested and help is needed with that.

Fair point. My last post was slightly too mean. I understand that. However the attitude you show here is poison. ''I have also won tournaments and done so with rogues so does that make me a better player than you?'' Answer: No. If that was the answer you were looking for then good. Using Zapdos seriously does make you a bad player as Zapdos is not good. Killing Yveltal in one hit is not a metric for success. If it were Mega Charizard would be good, but it is trash. The decks you list show more of this bad attitude. It implies tier 1 decks are not fun. If you did not mean that, then good. Nothing about tier 2/3 is inherently more fun, so do not lump them together in such a way. That is an example of personal bias you seem to hate (not denying that I was and am biased, of course I am). Also saying Pidgeot in conjunction with tier 1 decks is not helping you out.

On a final note:

Use does not equal abuse.
Good/Great/Playable does not equal ban worthy.
Use does not equal abuse.
Use does not equal abuse.

EDIT: Question to the maker of the filters, why is the word I typed filtered, when it is obviously not a mean spirited word in anyway? No association with it?

 

[vaporeon]

Debating you happens to be a waste of time because you refuse to see anything outside of your own ego. You only play meta (maybe only 1 deck) and insult my skill because I can utilize more cards than you . You use ad hominem and no true Scotsman to attack my credibility and strawman your way around my post to misrepresent them to make them easier to attack. You refuse to help test a list and make absolute statements about others not willing to help. Its like you're only here to argue and thats it. You have no interest in anything here and only speak from bias.

Because I play both meta and rogue, I noticed some cards are overpowered would like to make a new format so I made a list that deals with those cards but people here are so resistant to new things. The Pokemon VG group are different for sure.

 

[Krusiv]

Freze is giving you valid arguing points so you can better defend your ban list. Disregarding anything everyone says is not how you run a proper discussion. If you refuse to discuss then I don't see the point in this trhead. A mod should know better than that.

 

[vaporeon]

Freze is giving you valid arguing points so you can better defend your ban list. Disregarding anything everyone says is not how you run a proper discussion. If you refuse to discuss then I don't see the point in this trhead. A mod should know better than that.

Im attempting to discuss this but it will end up being the same thing. He only see 1 thing and that tier 1. That was made clear with his post about the Pokemon VG OU tier. Anything not Tier 1 or OU to him makes the player a bad player for using it. I was up all night last night for 2 hours responding to his post until I read the last part, then I figured out what kind of player I was dealing with.

Most of his argument is comes from not being able to have a strong (current) tier 1 deck in the format I would like to create and he time he fails to see what the list is trying to do and that be more balance for the new meta. He does not like the idea of giving other decks a shot at doing better as he prefers the play what wins or play a counter format. He appeals to authority us deploys ad hominem to attack the players because they have a different world view about the game and tries to take down their post by saying things like a bad player would us X so why would you listen to them. I have experience with dealing with mindsets like this but on a larger scale.

He seems to have no interest in a debate and is only posting to protect his own self interest while I sincerely and trying to share a view I feel would be good for a new format. I understand its hard for a person to see both sides in a argument when they are so heavily invested in only one but I can see both. Freze does make some good points Im willing to debate but he loses focus and start using tactics to make me look weak and unskillful and that I have no respect for. I don't deploy such tactics because I dont find them respectable and reminds of a certain group of people I'll never debate again because of how circular their arguments are.

If he wants to have a open minded debate, I'd be happy to partake in it. I love debates but only when both sides are respected. Also don't confuse my not posting as disregarding. I reply or try to reply to each post. Most here don't care to debate but to make claims they have no evidence for. I would much rather discuses with someone who engages the list. So far its been very bias but its better than nothing I suppose.

 

[Freze]

Im attempting to discuss this but it will end up being the same thing. He only see 1 thing and that tier 1. That was made clear with his post about the Pokemon VG OU tier. Anything not Tier 1 or OU to him makes the player a bad player for using it. I was up all night last night for 2 hours responding to his post until I read the last part, then I figured out what kind of player I was dealing with.

Yes, I do see tier 1 and basically only tier 1. However what I do not see necessarily is a static tier 1. When you say I think you are bad for using anything not tier 1 or OU makes you a bad player is partially, but not entirely correct. Something you have to realize is that if the lower tier deck or the single Pokémon that is lower tier in the video game, has a purpose to be used in the higher tier (TCG - competitive play, VG - OU), then it is okay to use it. Great examples here are Gyarados SF, which was used in European nationals, most notably France, but also elsewhere. For the VG an appropriate example would be Gastrodon in OU, when Drizzle was all the rage in Gen 5. Or Quagsire with Haze when Baton Pass was legal in Gen 6. These had functions. They are called counters in VG or rogues in TCG. However the problem is that rogues are not non-played or random decks. They are decks built to beat the metagame, which will be a thing in any format however limited it may be. Now the examples you showed such as Zapdos in the current format, is not a rogue. Sure the idea is to beat Yveltal. However this almost qualifies it as a rogue, but the fact that Raichu completely outclasses it and is in the format negates this rogue title and demotes it to random. This is why I said it is fair to make assumptions about how you play.

Most of his argument is comes from not being able to have a strong (current) tier 1 deck in the format I would like to create and he time he fails to see what the list is trying to do and that be more balance for the new meta. He does not like the idea of giving other decks a shot at doing better as he prefers the play what wins or play a counter format. He appeals to authority us deploys ad hominem to attack the players because they have a different world view about the game and tries to take down their post by saying things like a bad player would us X so why would you listen to them. I have experience with dealing with mindsets like this but on a larger scale.

Every format will have a strong tier 1 deck or decks. There will never be a format without a strategy or select few strategies that stand above all else. This is inevitable. My problem or argument comes from the fact that you needlessly neuter tier 1 decks because they are good and to no actual benefit. There actually comes a major cost to it. This is that it will dumb down the game further than it is already (due to the cards printed currently in general, not due to them all being playable. It is lacking high skill-intensive cards, not that some overpowered cards removed the skill). Give other decks a shot, fine. Needlessly kill better decks to give other decks a shot, which will never ultimately lead to a format where there are no better decks. No.

You have pointed out 4 logical fallacies I have supposedly committed. I argue that I have, in fact, committed none of them.

1. Ad hominem. This would be a fallacy I committed if the situation were that I said you were stupid or bad and then I finished. However, somewhat needlessly one may say, I said those things, but I also said why and removing them from my text would not in any way remove my argument.

2. Appealing to authority. This is somewhat true, but once again nuance is important. I am not appealing to a large authority. I am merely saying we have to have some level of competence, but I have not set that level overly high. This means that it is technically true that I am appealing to authority, I am doing it in a way that makes sense. Let me illustrate. Would you want a person who plays a tennis match a couple of times to then judge or create rules for the game. No. You would demand some level of proven competence. That is what I have done. Now you may say it is insulting or ad hominem to make that comparison, but in my eyes, sorry to go back to the same example, a player who plays Zapdos in a serious deck, should not be much higher than a player who has played the game a short time.

3. No true Scotsman. I assume this comes from my comments about real deck, serious deck or competitive deck or the like. If not correct me. However if it does come from those, that is not a no true Scotsman fallacy. This is because what I mean by real, serious or competitive deck is a deck that could in reality consistently win or do well in major tournaments. If it can, then it is a real, serious or competitive deck. If not then no. Clearly this is not the same as a no true Scotsman fallacy.

4. Straw manning. It is possible that I have misrepresented your points, which would seem like straw manning, however if I have it has been entirely unintentional. If you still feel I have done so repeat your point in a slightly different fashion if I misunderstood or maybe entirely the same if I just missed it.

Also when I say that you are bad for using Zapdos or thinking Leafeon is overpowered, I don't mean it how you seem to think. I DO NOT mean to say a bad player would play X, why would you listen to him? I mean to say a good player would not play X, so why would you listen to someone who plays X. While it may seem trivial, that is a relevant distinction and should be understood.

He seems to have no interest in a debate and is only posting to protect his own self interest while I sincerely and trying to share a view I feel would be good for a new format. I understand its hard for a person to see both sides in a argument when they are so heavily invested in only one but I can see both. Freze does make some good points Im willing to debate but he loses focus and start using tactics to make me look weak and unskillful and that I have no respect for. I don't deploy such tactics because I dont find them respectable and reminds of a certain group of people I'll never debate again because of how circular their arguments are.

Yes I am protecting my own interests. However what are they? I feel this list and the view propagated by it is harmful to the game and I do not want more people embracing it as it would, in my view, make the game worse. I feel this would absolutely be a terrible format for the game and the mindset crafted by it may seep into the standard format we have, if it somehow became popular. I do not want that to happen and therefore and protecting my interests. You are absolutely right. However I have also laid out why I feel it is bad. It dumbs the game down. It needlessly kills strategies. It removes skill-intensive parts of the game, which have been lessened already by the card designers, but once again banning or limiting cards would worsen the problem. The only way to fix it is by printing more skill-intensive cards. This, I fully understand, is a difficult task, which is why most people do not complain about it too much and let the designers, who have in the past made this game great, do their best.

Show me a circular argument I have made that is not on the level of trusting my reasoning process. Show me a chain of a --> b --> a --> b and so on. Or maybe a --> b --> c --> d -- etc. --> a... You get the point.

If he wants to have a open minded debate, I'd be happy to partake in it. I love debates but only when both sides are respected. Also don't confuse my not posting as disregarding. I reply or try to reply to each post. Most here don't care to debate but to make claims they have no evidence for. I would much rather discuses with someone who engages the list. So far its been very bias but its better than nothing I suppose.

Again I am not here to have a debate for the sake of a debate. I dislike debates as most of the time neither side will change their views. However partaking in one may be necessary as outsiders are liable to change their views and I do not want your view spreading, so I decided to counteract it.

EDIT: If I missed something or cut something out that means I either honestly missed it or found it trivial. Not because I want to straw man you.

 

[vaporeon]

Im attempting to discuss this but it will end up being the same thing. He only see 1 thing and that tier 1. That was made clear with his post about the Pokemon VG OU tier. Anything not Tier 1 or OU to him makes the player a bad player for using it. I was up all night last night for 2 hours responding to his post until I read the last part, then I figured out what kind of player I was dealing with.

Yes, I do see tier 1 and basically only tier 1. However what I do not see necessarily is a static tier 1. When you say I think you are bad for using anything not tier 1 or OU makes you a bad player is partially, but not entirely correct. Something you have to realize is that if the lower tier deck or the single Pokémon that is lower tier in the video game, has a purpose to be used in the higher tier (TCG - competitive play, VG - OU), then it is okay to use it. Great examples here are Gyarados SF, which was used in European nationals, most notably France, but also elsewhere. For the VG an appropriate example would be Gastrodon in OU, when Drizzle was all the rage in Gen 5. Or Quagsire with Haze when Baton Pass was legal in Gen 6. These had functions. They are called counters in VG or rogues in TCG. However the problem is that rogues are not non-played or random decks. They are decks built to beat the metagame, which will be a thing in any format however limited it may be. Now the examples you showed such as Zapdos in the current format, is not a rogue. Sure the idea is to beat Yveltal. However this almost qualifies it as a rogue, but the fact that Raichu completely outclasses it and is in the format negates this rogue title and demotes it to random. This is why I said it is fair to make assumptions about how you play.

Thats the problem there. You don't get to choose what is rogue and what is not, since my deck deals with the meta quite well. Many cards outclass others, yet they are still used competitively. Raichu requires more resources, based on my deck than Zapdos does so Zapdos is the best option for my deck, not Raichu. Just like you said, use what works against the meta for you. People also said Cresselia sucked in VGC and did not give it the time of day but look at where its at now. I knew Cresselia was good but people were so focused on their Dark Void Smergals. Just because you think every deck has 1 option against another does not make it true. I use what works for my deck, based on its build. You'll be surprised what I can pull off in games.

Most of his argument is comes from not being able to have a strong (current) tier 1 deck in the format I would like to create and he time he fails to see what the list is trying to do and that be more balance for the new meta. He does not like the idea of giving other decks a shot at doing better as he prefers the play what wins or play a counter format. He appeals to authority us deploys ad hominem to attack the players because they have a different world view about the game and tries to take down their post by saying things like a bad player would us X so why would you listen to them. I have experience with dealing with mindsets like this but on a larger scale.

Every format will have a strong tier 1 deck or decks. There will never be a format without a strategy or select few strategies that stand above all else. This is inevitable. My problem or argument comes from the fact that you needlessly neuter tier 1 decks because they are good and to no actual benefit. There actually comes a major cost to it. This is that it will dumb down the game further than it is already (due to the cards printed currently in general, not due to them all being playable. It is lacking high skill-intensive cards, not that some overpowered cards removed the skill). Give other decks a shot, fine. Needlessly kill better decks to give other decks a shot, which will never ultimately lead to a format where there are no better decks. No.

I agree with you here. There will always be tier 1 decks. Nothing can be done about that but the elements that the current tier 1 decks have already dumb down the game. The skill level currently is whether or not I have access to laser, G booster or black ballista this turn, if not I'll wait till I draw it. Rinse and repeat. The quality of the game right now is bad and this list attempts to restore it. Some things will go unseen and will be dealt with during the next ban list if it needs dealing with but the list as of now is what I fell would restore this quality. It needs to be tested for sure.
You have pointed out 4 logical fallacies I have supposedly committed. I argue that I have, in fact, committed none of them.

1. Ad hominem. This would be a fallacy I committed if the situation were that I said you were stupid or bad and then I finished. However, somewhat needlessly one may say, I said those things, but I also said why and removing them from my text would not in any way remove my argument.

The things is you have no argument. Your only goal is to undermine my argument by say things like bad players use Zapdos. This translates to "If you can't win with your bad Zapdos card, then why should we listen to someone about the meta who sucks at it so he can win". When other like minded people see that, they agree with your statement and further make the argument one sided by say I have no creditability, just because you decide whats good or not if they don't conform with your tier 1 world view. You also seem to disregard the fact that I also play meta deck, which further proves my point.

2. Appealing to authority. This is somewhat true, but once again nuance is important. I am not appealing to a large authority. I am merely saying we have to have some level of competence, but I have not set that level overly high. This means that it is technically true that I am appealing to authority, I am doing it in a way that makes sense. Let me illustrate. Would you want a person who plays a tennis match a couple of times to then judge or create rules for the game. No. You would demand some level of proven competence. That is what I have done. Now you may say it is insulting or ad hominem to make that comparison, but in my eyes, sorry to go back to the same example, a player who plays Zapdos in a serious deck, should not be much higher than a player who has played the game a short time.

I agree with you here but you do appeal to a large authority. You also appeal to popularity. If I am the only player using zapdos i a tournament and make a record of 10-3 and miss cut but everyone else uses your Darkrai/Yveltal, we can assume at least 1 will top cut. We also have to assume that most of those players will do worse than me. If there is a top 8 and I wiff and take 9th place, that mean every other Darkrai/Yveltal deck was worse than my zapdos deck. It also means 8 other Darkrai/Yveltal were better than my Zapdos deck. Now in real tournaments, I have positive records, beating most meta deck because I understand the meta so if I understand the meta well enough to the point to where I can beat it/ do well I can become an authority on it, just like the others you hold to a high regard. Some level of competence is needed here, which is why the list needs testing. When you say things like "a player who plays Zapdos in a serious deck should not be much higher than a player who has played the game a short time" comes off a elitist. Just in that one statement, you took away any accomplishments I've ever made in this game because you compared me to a know player who has no knowledge of the game or its meta.

3. No true Scotsman. I assume this comes from my comments about real deck, serious deck or competitive deck or the like. If not correct me. However if it does come from those, that is not a no true Scotsman fallacy. This is because what I mean by real, serious or competitive deck is a deck that could in reality consistently win or do well in major tournaments. If it can, then it is a real, serious or competitive deck. If not then no. Clearly this is not the same as a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Sure it is. If you don't play meta, you aren't playing a real deck, after all, no real deck uses Zapdos, even if its proven to do well.

4. Straw manning. It is possible that I have misrepresented your points, which would seem like straw manning, however if I have it has been entirely unintentional. If you still feel I have done so repeat your point in a slightly different fashion if I misunderstood or maybe entirely the same if I just missed it.

Fair enough. I can do that.

Also when I say that you are bad for using Zapdos or thinking Leafeon is overpowered, I don't mean it how you seem to think. I DO NOT mean to say a bad player would play X, why would you listen to him? I mean to say a good player would not play X, so why would you listen to someone who plays X. While it may seem trivial, that is a relevant distinction and should be understood.

This is still appealing to authority. A good player will use X if it improves a matchup, even if its a bad card or precised as bad. I have many options and I explore them. In my current deck Aromatisse, Zapdos is my best attacking option. I can conserve energy, Catcher out Yveltal and knock it out when its needed. I attack throughout the game with agility to prevent damage and hit big when needed. This works for me against Darkrai. I max potion to give it staying power. I can lock things in the active spot with Articuno if I dont see a keldeo in play. The deck has options. Worse comes to worse I'll sac 2 energy to put 100 on Yveltal and KO it next turn. Anything can happen but because you think a card is bad, doesn't mean it is.

He seems to have no interest in a debate and is only posting to protect his own self interest while I sincerely and trying to share a view I feel would be good for a new format. I understand its hard for a person to see both sides in a argument when they are so heavily invested in only one but I can see both. Freze does make some good points Im willing to debate but he loses focus and start using tactics to make me look weak and unskillful and that I have no respect for. I don't deploy such tactics because I dont find them respectable and reminds of a certain group of people I'll never debate again because of how circular their arguments are.

Yes I am protecting my own interests. However what are they? I feel this list and the view propagated by it is harmful to the game and I do not want more people embracing it as it would, in my view, make the game worse. I feel this would absolutely be a terrible format for the game and the mindset crafted by it may seep into the standard format we have, if it somehow became popular. I do not want that to happen and therefore and protecting my interests. You are absolutely right. However I have also laid out why I feel it is bad. It dumbs the game down. It needlessly kills strategies. It removes skill-intensive parts of the game, which have been lessened already by the card designers, but once again banning or limiting cards would worsen the problem. The only way to fix it is by printing more skill-intensive cards. This, I fully understand, is a difficult task, which is why most people do not complain about it too much and let the designers, who have in the past made this game great, do their best.

This is why you can't argue this point. You bring bias to this debate and cant see anything else objectively. This is the main problem with politics. They try to argue from a side they care to know nothing about and force changes accordingly. I have no interest to protect. I'm doing what I feel is honestly good for the game. I also dont plan on running this by myself. One person can't not test such a change. I need many people on board to test this for best results. I proposed this idea because the game is so dumb downed. There are a ton of unique decks that can be build but they aren't explored because of the meta. The new list gives those decks a chance. You can still play your Darkrai deck, its just weaker and required a little more though. Thats not bad for the game. it in fact makes it healthier.

Show me a circular argument I have made that is not on the level of trusting my reasoning process. Show me a chain of a --> b --> a --> b and so on. Or maybe a --> b --> c --> d -- etc. --> a... You get the point.

Perhaps circular was not the best word to describe it. Based on your responses, you only care about tier 1 decks. You start your argument with it and end with it. You allow no room for anything else that contradicts with that, ending your argument with why its needed.

If he wants to have a open minded debate, I'd be happy to partake in it. I love debates but only when both sides are respected. Also don't confuse my not posting as disregarding. I reply or try to reply to each post. Most here don't care to debate but to make claims they have no evidence for. I would much rather discuses with someone who engages the list. So far its been very bias but its better than nothing I suppose.

Again I am not here to have a debate for the sake of a debate. I dislike debates as most of the time neither side will change their views. However partaking in one may be necessary as outsiders are liable to change their views and I do not want your view spreading, so I decided to counteract it.

I posted views on what I though would be good for the game, based on my experience from playing meta and rogue. I can see both side clearly. I also understand why ban list are made. You brought bias to this thread with no intention in giving what I had to say a change because it threaten your would view. While I appreciate what you said, it did nothing to contribute to what the spirit of the thread was supposed to be about.

EDIT: If I missed something or cut something out that means I either honestly missed it or found it trivial. Not because I want to straw man you.

Its alright. I think you did good.

 

[Freze]

Thats the problem there. You don't get to choose what is rogue and what is not, since my deck deals with the meta quite well. Many cards outclass others, yet they are still used competitively. Raichu requires more resources, based on my deck than Zapdos does so Zapdos is the best option for my deck, not Raichu. Just like you said, use what works against the meta for you. People also said Cresselia sucked in VGC and did not give it the time of day but look at where its at now. I knew Cresselia was good but people were so focused on their Dark Void Smergals. Just because you think every deck has 1 option against another does not make it true. I use what works for my deck, based on its build. You'll be surprised what I can pull off in games.

True. I don't get to decide, but the game will filter it out for me. If you play in a couple of tournaments, with a great rogue that counters the meta well, you will make it far in at least some tournament. Yes in one individual tournament you may not, due to luck, but otherwise there should be no problem. Show me some tournament states, regionals, nationals, anything in which you have done well with this rogue. I don't know about VGC so I won't comment.

I agree with you here. There will always be tier 1 decks. Nothing can be done about that but the elements that the current tier 1 decks have already dumb down the game. The skill level currently is whether or not I have access to laser, G booster or black ballista this turn, if not I'll wait till I draw it. Rinse and repeat. The quality of the game right now is bad and this list attempts to restore it. Some things will go unseen and will be dealt with during the next ban list if it needs dealing with but the list as of now is what I fell would restore this quality. It needs to be tested for sure.

Yes, but banning cards will dumb it down further. I mean now we at least have HTL, G Booster, Superior Energy Retrieval etc to conserve, hold onto and play at the right time. Banning or limiting these power cards would make the situation worse. The only way to fix it is, as I mentioned, for the card the designers to design better cards. However I also acknowledge that this is difficult and all we ought to do is let them do their best.

The things is you have no argument. Your only goal is to undermine my argument by say things like bad players use Zapdos. This translates to "If you can't win with your bad Zapdos card, then why should we listen to someone about the meta who sucks at it so he can win". When other like minded people see that, they agree with your statement and further make the argument one sided by say I have no creditability, just because you decide whats good or not if they don't conform with your tier 1 world view. You also seem to disregard the fact that I also play meta deck, which further proves my point.

Yes I do.

Your list dumbs down the game due to removing moving pieces. Fewer pieces means less to think about. A complex function would be nice, but that is not available, the most we can have with this set of cards is many simple pieces. You remove these simple pieces, you dumb down the game. Fewer simple things makes the situation simpler than many simple things.

You have not shown empirical data of game breaking dominance of the cards listed. This means that they should not be banned or limited as they have not posed a major threat.

After I say these (or before) and then attack you, which I suppose is uncalled for, is not ad hominem as I have addressed the issue, but merely attack you in addition. Imagine this: 1. You are stupid, I won't listen. 2. You are stupid, here's why x, y and z, I won't listen to you. If x, y and z are relevant points in this conversation the later is no longer ad hominem.

I agree with you here but you do appeal to a large authority. You also appeal to popularity. If I am the only player using zapdos i a tournament and make a record of 10-3 and miss cut but everyone else uses your Darkrai/Yveltal, we can assume at least 1 will top cut. We also have to assume that most of those players will do worse than me. If there is a top 8 and I wiff and take 9th place, that mean every other Darkrai/Yveltal deck was worse than my zapdos deck. It also means 8 other Darkrai/Yveltal were better than my Zapdos deck. Now in real tournaments, I have positive records, beating most meta deck because I understand the meta so if I understand the meta well enough to the point to where I can beat it/ do well I can become an authority on it, just like the others you hold to a high regard. Some level of competence is needed here, which is why the list needs testing. When you say things like "a player who plays Zapdos in a serious deck should not be much higher than a player who has played the game a short time" comes off a elitist. Just in that one statement, you took away any accomplishments I've ever made in this game because you compared me to a know player who has no knowledge of the game or its meta.

Yeah, sorry I typo'd. I meant to say that I do appeal to a large authority. So large that it is not practical to call it an authority. About appealing to popularity, no. Show me a high level tournament (regionals, states, nationals), where you have done well with Zapdos. Also once you mentioned that it was an aromatisse deck with merely a tech Zapdos, it makes much more sense. Why would you hide that information? You made it seem, to my eyes maybe I missed it, that you were playing a Zapdos based deck or a Pidgeot based deck. Show me a tournament. Also going positive is not anything good. You have to understand that only winning or almost winning matters and therefore going positive is, in my eyes, like losing all matches. That is because most players just are not amazing at the game. I mean of course not. There can only be so few top players. Not everyone is a top player. Sure this sounds elitist because it is. I don't see a problem with that, when it comes to a game.

3. No true Scotsman. I assume this comes from my comments about real deck, serious deck or competitive deck or the like. If not correct me. However if it does come from those, that is not a no true Scotsman fallacy. This is because what I mean by real, serious or competitive deck is a deck that could in reality consistently win or do well in major tournaments. If it can, then it is a real, serious or competitive deck. If not then no. Clearly this is not the same as a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Sure it is. If you don't play meta, you aren't playing a real deck, after all, no real deck uses Zapdos, even if its proven to do well.

Prove it. Show me a high level tournament (states, regionals or nationals), where you won or almost won. Also once again I am sorry, but I was under the impression that Zapdos was the main focus of your deck. If it was in an aromatisse deck, I see it as an inferior option to those available, but at least almost viable.

This is still appealing to authority. A good player will use X if it improves a matchup, even if its a bad card or precised as bad. I have many options and I explore them. In my current deck Aromatisse, Zapdos is my best attacking option. I can conserve energy, Catcher out Yveltal and knock it out when its needed. I attack throughout the game with agility to prevent damage and hit big when needed. This works for me against Darkrai. I max potion to give it staying power. I can lock things in the active spot with Articuno if I dont see a keldeo in play. The deck has options. Worse comes to worse I'll sac 2 energy to put 100 on Yveltal and KO it next turn. Anything can happen but because you think a card is bad, doesn't mean it is.

What authority am I appealing to? The authority of players who have shown themselves competent? In the same way I would go to a mechanic who has shown himself able to repair cars the best out of any mechanic I know of? Also this authority could be wiped out, merely by showing a tournament or two where this has worked.

This is why you can't argue this point. You bring bias to this debate and cant see anything else objectively. This is the main problem with politics. They try to argue from a side they care to know nothing about and force changes accordingly. I have no interest to protect. I'm doing what I feel is honestly good for the game. I also dont plan on running this by myself. One person can't not test such a change. I need many people on board to test this for best results. I proposed this idea because the game is so dumb downed. There are a ton of unique decks that can be build but they aren't explored because of the meta. The new list gives those decks a chance. You can still play your Darkrai deck, its just weaker and required a little more though. Thats not bad for the game. it in fact makes it healthier.

My interest are keeping the game healthy. I think this poisons the game. Fyi, no one is objective. We are all biased. Now show me why taking pieces out of the game, pieces which provide a simple mechanic, but leaving the situation as a game with fewer simple mechanics all of which existed prior, is a good idea. Take a 3/10 skill deck effectively out of the game (Darkrai), as you remove its pieces, which make it tick and replacing it with a 2/10 skill deck, due to virtue of removing pieces and adding no new ones as only the card designers can do that. How does this make the game healthier?

Perhaps circular was not the best word to describe it. Based on your responses, you only care about tier 1 decks. You start your argument with it and end with it. You allow no room for anything else that contradicts with that, ending your argument with why its needed.

Okay? Winning is important. Tier 1 decks are tier 1 because they win. If they are not tier 1 and they consistently win, they will eventually become tier 1. Tier 1 is the most important, if winning is the goal. Therefore I will concentrate on tier 1 to begin with and continue with it throughout to the very end.

I posted views on what I though would be good for the game, based on my experience from playing meta and rogue. I can see both side clearly. I also understand why ban list are made. You brought bias to this thread with no intention in giving what I had to say a change because it threaten your would view. While I appreciate what you said, it did nothing to contribute to what the spirit of the thread was supposed to be about.

And I said why I dislike it. Why I think it is poison. Why is it not?

How does removing pieces of slight skill and adding nothing, create a more skillful game?
How does removing non-dominating factors make for a better game?
Why is disruption bad?
Why is aggressiveness (in the game) bad?
Why is energy acceleration bad?
Why are powerful trainers bad?

Keeping in mind that we cannot create new cards, can you answer those?

 

[Axew]

Debating you happens to be a waste of time because you refuse to see anything outside of your own ego. You only play meta (maybe only 1 deck) and insult my skill because I can utilize more cards than you . You use ad hominem and no true Scotsman to attack my credibility and strawman your way around my post to misrepresent them to make them easier to attack. You refuse to help test a list and make absolute statements about others not willing to help. Its like you're only here to argue and thats it. You have no interest in anything here and only speak from bias.

Because I play both meta and rogue, I noticed some cards are overpowered would like to make a new format so I made a list that deals with those cards but people here are so resistant to new things. The Pokemon VG group are different for sure.

why does him using powerful cards make him a less skilled player? why is winning bad? is losing with "honor" better than winning with "shame?"

 

[vaporeon]

I'll answers these questions if you dont mind.

How does removing pieces of slight skill and adding nothing, create a more skillful game?

Everything has a degree of skill of it. Removing these simple pieces will make the game more skillful because it forces the player to make different choices in deck building and gameplay. This also opens up the meta to other deck choices so they can do well, which is the nature of a ban/restriction list and its to bring in new idea. Also since the game has not had a real rotation that mattered, since everything important was reprinted, this list is to also help move the game forward. At least for this format.

How does removing non-dominating factors make for a better game?

Like I said before, this is looking at the game now and the game after with the ban/restriction list. A lot of it is theorymon and should be thoroughly tested. This is not the end all be all.

Why is disruption bad?

Not all disruption is bad but there is a lot of it. Decks will still hit hard in the new format with the list. I suggest its something worth looking to know if this restriction or ban is worth it.

Why is aggressiveness (in the game) bad?

There will always be aggressive plays. In the new format, I also allow a rule of who goes first can attack first but can't place any damage or special conditions clause so they can use setup attacks like call for family. This helps with it but is mostly to allow evolution decks a chance to not get overrun. Basic decks can run 10 to 14 more trainers than evolution decks can without trading consistency. My goal is to help reduce the stress on the person playing the evolution deck from going first or second and being evil balled out of the game because they cant find rare candy on the second turn. Do note this is important for decks using stage 1 and 2 evolutions as the decks main attackers.

Why is energy acceleration bad?

Its not bad, just overpowered. This is partly due to the designers choice in card designs. Right now the most powerful accelerators are ability and trainer based. There are also many cards to help achieve this, which is why they are limited. The goal is to slow them down, which is what the list does. It does not completely kill them.

Why are powerful trainers bad?

I always thought Pokemon's 4 of everything was a fundamental flaw from the start. 4 of somethings were not so bad, like switch but cards evolved if you will. Energy search became professors letter. Potion got a buff, reversal became catchers etc. The thing is the trainers became too powerful to the point to where they change and or win games. Trainer were not suppose to replace things Pokemon were suppose to do. HTL is a example of this. This is made worse with cards like Sableye that have access to any of them during a game. Sure it fells good to just sweep your opponent with junk hunt hammers and lasers while they have a bad start. Powerful trainers are bad in the amounts they are allowed, which is why I opt to restrict them. None of them are banned so you can use them but they are limited because they are too good at what they do.

 

[vaporeon]

why does him using powerful cards make him a less skilled player? why is winning bad? is losing with "honor" better than winning with "shame?"

Your first point is misrepresenting my statement. Using more powerful cards does not make anyone a less skillful player, rather removing or limiting these powerful cards make the game more skillful. As to you last few points, I have no idea where any of this came from as I never made any such statements. Winning is NEVER bad. I play the game to win, you play the game to win, he plays the game to win, I expect everyone to play the game to win. I also play the game for fun, which the format is not right now. Thats my opinion but Im sure some agree with that.

Also losing with honor is rather subjective and I can only tell you what it means to me. I would much rather lose a game I know I played my best in than resort to cheating. That would be a honorable loss to me. Nothing wrong there but that branches into different type of losses. The first type of lost being "It wasn't my fault I lost" which is the most common. This is losing because of dead draws and or misplaying. This other being "It was my fault I lost" which is things like I did everything right but still loss (maybe due to deck choice and minor misplays) but can use that loss to learn from. This is why I like the idea of recording games because you see where you messed up.

As for winning with shame... There is almost no shame from winning unless you did so using illegal means. Again, Im not sure where you want to go with this but its not the focus of this thread.

 

[LunarWolf21]

I would like to start off by saying I don't think the TCG needs to ban cards (I think printing a few good checks and counters would do the trick), but I do think a few of them could've been printed with more balanced (and skill-oriented) effects. I'll be pointing out a couple examples.

I feel like OP's heart's in the right place, but has gotten carried away a little to the extreme. For example, cards like Juniper (that OP says is a problem) are great for the game (more consistency = more choices, less luck, more skill), the only problem is there's no alternative card in the format that says "Shuffle your hand into your deck, then draw 7 cards." So players are forced to use it (Juniper), or press their luck with extra Colress, and hope their first turn doesn't consist of poor draws. So the drawback of discarding their hand is forced upon the players, due to lack of a better choice.

Some cards, like Hypnotoxic Laser, I actually pleasantly enjoy that they printed it. Still, I think the coin-flip for Sleep is no fun - I would've made the card say "Choose either Poison or Sleep. The Defending Pokemon is now affected by that Special Condition." Such an easy change to that effect would eliminate the luck factor and provide an additional choice for the player to make, raising strategy a little more.

Startling Megaphone was an odd choice - they made Tool Scrapper almost obsolete, while simultaneously removing a solid Tier 2 deck from competition (Tool Drop). Sure, it stops "over-extension" of Tools (if you've played Yu-Gi-Oh before, think of the card "Heavy Storm", or in this case, "Harpie's Feather Duster" might be a better analogy), but at what cost? An entire deck type. I think that's a bit much, myself.

The only card I can think of that I would "Limit", per se, would've been Pokemon Catcher - for a while now I've thought it would've been better as an ACE-SPEC than a coin flip.

Props to the TCG team for finally printing Focus Sash in the next set, unfortunately it only works with :fighting: Pokemon, but still, a solid strategic Tool. And I'm enjoying Miltank and her Powerful Friends.

 

[vaporeon]

I would like to start off by saying I don't think the TCG needs to ban cards (I think printing a few good checks and counters would do the trick), but I do think a few of them could've been printed with more balanced (and skill-oriented) effects. I'll be pointing out a couple examples.

I feel like OP's heart's in the right place, but has gotten carried away a little to the extreme. For example, cards like Juniper (that OP says is a problem) are great for the game (more consistency = more choices, less luck, more skill), the only problem is there's no alternative card in the format that says "Shuffle your hand into your deck, then draw 7 cards." So players are forced to use it (Juniper), or press their luck with extra Colress, and hope their first turn doesn't consist of poor draws. So the drawback of discarding their hand is forced upon the players, due to lack of a better choice.

Some cards, like Hypnotoxic Laser, I actually pleasantly enjoy that they printed it. Still, I think the coin-flip for Sleep is no fun - I would've made the card say "Choose either Poison or Sleep. The Defending Pokemon is now affected by that Special Condition." Such an easy change to that effect would eliminate the luck factor and provide an additional choice for the player to make, raising strategy a little more.

Startling Megaphone was an odd choice - they made Tool Scrapper almost obsolete, while simultaneously removing a solid Tier 2 deck from competition (Tool Drop). Sure, it stops "over-extension" of Tools (if you've played Yu-Gi-Oh before, think of the card "Heavy Storm", or in this case, "Harpie's Feather Duster" might be a better analogy), but at what cost? An entire deck type. I think that's a bit much, myself.

The only card I can think of that I would "Limit", per se, would've been Pokemon Catcher - for a while now I've thought it would've been better as an ACE-SPEC than a coin flip.

Props to the TCG team for finally printing Focus Sash in the next set, unfortunately it only works with :fighting: Pokemon, but still, a solid strategic Tool. And I'm enjoying Miltank and her Powerful Friends.

Good point made about juniper. There is a lack of good shuffle draw. I was really hoping Professor Sycamore was shuffle and draw 7 but yeah. I think the game should look at other options instead of just printing other cards. For basic and evolution decks, the trainer difference is between 10 to 14 cards so if I were to play a stage 2 deck, I have to use less trainers just for setup. A side deck would greatly help with tech option because I dont have to use deck spaces to counter other deck. Sure basic decks get better but they are already stupid to begin with. Why its a issue is because these decks now dont have the space to run techs needed so the format turns into play what wins or a counter.

I have mixed feelings for lasers as well. What really breaks the card. Virbank makes it stronger but the sleep does too. Perhaps if the coin was flip a coin for either effect. If you get heads, pick one. Sleep is too powerful to be on a trainer cards. its like if a a trainer card said the defending pokemon is now paralyzed. It would be too good. The question there is do you (if you have to pick one) remove or limit Virbank or Laser, Keeping in mind that Virbank can be use in legitimate poison decks.

There is also no reason for startling megaphone to exist other than having a XY counterpart. Perhaps the rotation will run deep? I agree with the catcher statement and miltank is good. A fun little card.

 

[LunarWolf21]

Good point made about juniper. There is a lack of good shuffle draw. I was really hoping Professor Sycamore was shuffle and draw 7 but yeah. I think the game should look at other options instead of just printing other cards. For basic and evolution decks, the trainer difference is between 10 to 14 cards so if I were to play a stage 2 deck, I have to use less trainers just for setup. A side deck would greatly help with tech option because I dont have to use deck spaces to counter other deck. Sure basic decks get better but they are already stupid to begin with. Why its a issue is because these decks now dont have the space to run techs needed so the format turns into play what wins or a counter.

I have mixed feelings for lasers as well. What really breaks the card. Virbank makes it stronger but the sleep does too. Perhaps if the coin was flip a coin for either effect. If you get heads, pick one. Sleep is too powerful to be on a trainer cards. its like if a a trainer card said the defending pokemon is now paralyzed. It would be too good. The question there is do you (if you have to pick one) remove or limit Virbank or Laser, Keeping in mind that Virbank can be use in legitimate poison decks.

There is also no reason for startling megaphone to exist other than having a XY counterpart. Perhaps the rotation will run deep? I agree with the catcher statement and miltank is good. A fun little card.

Another point to add to Juniper: the situation with Juniper (and to a lesser extent, N) combined with lack of reliable shuffle-draw is the root cause of the metagame's fast pace and why playing down your whole hand early is rewarded, and is why conserving your resources has become a bad strategy. Juniper makes you play your cards because "well, I'm just gonna discard them anyway", and fear of your opponent playing N makes you wanna use your cards before you lose your chance (and shuffling back less cards draws you deeper into your deck as well). Also, the same thought process applies when you want to play N to bring your opponent down to 1 - you'll want to use the cards you have before you N.

Whereas, with your own shuffle-draw, you can play it when you need to, and can wait if you have a card you might play next turn. And there's no pressure to play it aggressively, since it doesn't affect your opponent's hand.

I believe Side Decks would break Pokemon (and I'm sure you've heard others say that before), but I think a Side Card would be beneficial to the game. Just 1, no more. 1 is just enough to tech a Silver Mirror, or a Startling Megaphone, or a Druddigon, and it wouldn't make anything an Auto-Win, whereas 2 or more could.

It is difficult using a stage 2 deck, that's why I'm looking forward to the ORAS sets - I hope they reprint Wally's Training. If there were a card that could shuffle back in 2 in any combination of Pokemon and Rare Candies from the discard, I think that would help clear deck space some.

Now about Laser, I disagree with Sleep on a Trainer being like Paralysis, as Sleep is inherently a coin flip, even if the Trainer card doesn't require one, so it's a 50/50 shot. That's not something you can really base a strategy around, that's just a last-ditch effort to buy a turn when you're losing. Another Trainer that's a 50/50 - Catcher. I'd rather play a Catcher than a Trainer that puts them to Sleep. (My only gripe about Laser is the fact it Poisons + Sleeps at the same time, which is why I suggested that alternate effect in my last post.) As for Paralysis, that's a guarantee, something you can plan on, and you can take advantage of that, especially if you use them in continuous turns. That would be something I'd advocate a ban on.

Now, I know you feel the Poison damage is too much with Virbank, but I personally feel it's fine, so long as you can't win the whole game on Lasers alone (as long as you have to attack some), and I think the existence of Virizion EX deters that strategy just enough. Another point, is that Trainers (and Energy) in general (not just Lasers) are dealing a lot of damage too - like Fighting Stadium + Strong Energy (from the next set), and Muscle Band, Silver Bangle, and I see this trend continuing, so it's not just Hypnotoxic Laser that's dealing the extra damage.

If I had to nerf Laser or Virbank, it wouldn't be with bans or limits - that wouldn't fix the root problems. You could make Virbank only amplify Poison inflicted by attacks, but again, I don't feel it's necessary.

 

[Mekkah]

It is difficult using a stage 2 deck, that's why I'm looking forward to the ORAS sets - I hope they reprint Wally's Training. If there were a card that could shuffle back in 2 in any combination of Pokemon and Rare Candies from the discard, I think that would help clear deck space some.

If you are suggesting these two suggestions will be of significant help to Stage 2 decks, I'm going to disagree, just like I disagree with people saying Broken Time-Space would be the best fix to help evolutions keep up with basics.

Wally's Training does little to nothing for current evolution decks. It's basically Evosoda but worse since it only targets the active. Its only advantage is that it works under trainer lock. Evosoda is currently not the card people use to evolve: they play the Ball trainers. And the card just doesn't help Stage 2 decks enough: they are looking to get that quick Rare Candy to keep up. They do not need more cards to search out the Prinplups and the Frogadiers and the Dusclops: they can't keep up with just those. Even Garchomp cannot (re)cycle Gabites and Garchomps fast enough to keep up in this format, and that's really saying something.

A Super Rod that shuffles in Candies and Pokemon is a nice thought, but again it adds too little compared to Super Rod/Sacred Ash. All it does is make your life slightly better if you are forced to discard a lot of Rare Candies while you're still looking to draw into one - a very specific situation, and only useful in a specific timeframe. A deck like Blastoise does not actually want Rare Candy or Pokémon in the deck lategame.

Also, the underlying problem with Stage 2 decks is not that they do not have the cards available to them to shine. The Stage 2s we have and their supporting Trainers are all very good. The main problems is that they require too much deck space to work. A basic attacker like Yveltal needs 2 Energy attachments to function at a most basic level and that's all there's to it. Add some extra copies of the Yveltal and you can start thinking about acceleration, draw engine, boosting damage, etc.

Meanwhile, just to be able to play down a Greninja, you need to play a bunch of Froakie, a bunch of Greninja, the Frogadier and then your 4 Rare Candy. Then in order to get them into play reasonably quickly enough you will need Skyla, more Ball trainers than your average basic deck, and Tropical Beach. Meanwhile Yveltal just runs 4 Ultra Ball and it's good to go.

That's why creating a Wally's Training or BTS or a Super Rod That Also Fishes For Rare Candy does little to help these decks: they hardly have the room to include them to begin with!

edit: Another reason Stage 2 decks, especially ones that attack with their Stage 2s, tend to fall flat on their face, is that they need all these cards to be used at the right time to work. That can work a couple of times, if they're lucky it happens quickly, but if they need to keep these Stage 2s coming they end up falling short eventually.

The biggest boost for Stage 2 decks was actually Miltank, since it relieved so much pressure from a deck like Empoleon. Finally it got an attacker that only took one turn to drop and do big damage, only took one Super Rod slot to put back in, and let the deck preserve its Empoleons and their Diving Draws. The deck can actually beat Plasma now!

Also not surprised to see vaporeon still unable to properly process constructive criticism and keep reasoning from his own limited and inexperienced (at higher level play) perspective.

 

[vaporeon]

Also not surprised to see vaporeon still unable to properly process constructive criticism and keep reasoning from his own limited and inexperienced (at higher level play) perspective.

While I agree with the bulk of your post, I felt the need to respond to this. I can take constructive criticism but what I refuse to accept is when people say I'm inexperienced at higher level of play without any evidence to back that up. I assume you consider "at higher level play" tournaments where the quality of players are from good to great, where the overall "skill" tends to be higher. I expect good players to play very well at any level of competition, not just the big ones. At the big one, there are simply more players that I expect to play well, but with pokemon being a very simplistic game (deck strats are not that difficult to pull off for any less skillful player of skillful player), I expect all games played to be at a decent level to start from, regardless of the skill of that player.

If we can say this is whats required to be a competitive skillful player, then I can say I've player a more competitive card game (yugioh) at what you consider a higher level, where the quality of player and skill are much higher than that of Pokemon. I may also add I've met some of these tournaments with top cuts or leaving them with positive records. Since Yugioh is a much skillful card game than Pokemon, that pretty much kills your statement about any lack of skill you think I may have, however I could not expect you to know that so I thought I'd just educate you.

 

[loudkirbyking]

Okay, I've done some thinking on this format you're proposing, and allow me to put my input.

What would end up big?
Dark got nerfed, Keldeo got nerfed, but the only thing Genesect lost was G-booster and Colress machine(Which didn't matter as much since red signal). Much less, the slight nerf by G-booster loss is still BUFFED by other decks losing catcher and Lyssandre. Now, if you wish to say 'Why, it won't be that bad', consider it this way. This format has a trend of eliminating the heavy OHKO speed format, which I can agree with. However, what happens when you remove the speed? You get lots and lots of bench set up. So we end up with decks like Reuniclus, Cresselia, Crustle or something like that. Decks that need that set-up time and need those bench sitters. What counters this? Genesect. Genesect would end up completely ruling the format, especially with Emboar limitations(I see mostly 3-1-3 in my area for reference. If most players go 2-1-2, my apologies). If you truly wish to eliminate that big, 'heavy hitter' format for a more skill game, why is an attach catcher that can be brought back with shadow triad allowed through? That's what the first issue is.

The second is what other decks would be brought up. Sure, rogue decks would fly in by the dozen, but this creates new problems. What decks would reign supreme? With Juniper and N limits, now we get pokemon with draw abilities(Especially with Garbodor limitted) being mainstream. Delphox would still lurk around due to more consistent with it's ability(Even with Emboar problems) yet Genesect still renders this issue, well, an issue. One Plasma Frigate shuts down the fire weakness. Otherwise, Shiftry, and Empoleon. Both cards have a reliable draw power. Empoleon more so with our Eggy friend. Shiftry loses power due to energy retrieval, professor's letter, and superior falling out(My shiftry deck that did decent ran all but superior due to deck limits. Tested the deck many times, it needs that energy retrieval). Another card that rises back is Garchomp. With time to set up and lack of catching Altarias, it can Dragonblade consistently for 160+ with a bangle or muscle band. What reason does it have not to? So we get Empoleon, Genesect, Garchomp, and the occasional Delphox/Emboar and Reunclus.deck. Where's the rest of the decks? Well, there's the issue. The consistency of those decks or pure survivability render most other decks useless. Okay, you paralyze the one Garchomp with Articuno? Oh no, not like I can just walk up and revenge kill. You agility to block my damage? Good thing I have this plasma energy. You Red carded me and then Ghetsis to force me into nothing? Good thing mystical fire is here.

So then remove Genesect, right?

Let's follow the logic. Genesect beats most decks that rely on bench sitters. With the logic from before, this buffs Reuniclus and others, along with Delphox. Delphox gets checked by Empoleon, yes, but what of Reuniclus and friends? It spike up. Now there's another issue of the OHKO cards being gone in a format where we need to OHKO or it'll never die. One Mega Venasaur combined with a Reuniclus and a couple of Cresselias(Don't say it isn't possible. With the slowed down format, you have time to set up. Level ball and heavy ball search all parts of Reuniclus and MVena).

So this issue now comes into play. But then why not just ban Reuniclus, right? Then another slew of problems arise now that we have a giant mass of useless cards you just created from getting rid of the one chain that linked them together. Well, what can counter bench sitters now? Shiftry, the one you nerfed down to oblivion because it lost it's way to get energies back out. Riiiight. And before you mention Milotic, tested both versions. The milotic version was much, much worse and much less consistent. The other thing to counter set up decks? Mill. Do you really want MILL to become the main deck? Wanting to conserve EVERY resource in case you need it later, only for it to be red carded away then discarded? And yes, mill is possible. I've seen a few Aggron decks, and if we're talking about BW-on, Durant rears it's ugly head back.

So then now what?

The issue with a ban list is the same issue Yugioh has. Ban the mot popular deck, another one that was checked by that deck will reign supreme. Yes, I will agree with you that I hate this speed format so much. Some cards never should have been printed(Laser, Catcher(Pre-nerf), Mewtwo, Yveltal, Sableye, etc.) but I don't believe a ban list is the way to go. I like the concept, and you seem to have a decent grasp on what cards need to be removed. But at the same time, unless you want to specifically limit which decks are top tier, there can and always will be a small handful of decks that reign on top. It's just unfortunately how the game works. Just the way they printed cards means that get rid of X card, Y will fly in on a jetpack to sweep up the field.

Also, a fair point, realize the draw supporters we get now are Shauna, Colress, Cheren, limited Juniper and N, Tierno, Bianca, and... yeah. None of these are a truly reliable hand refresh minus Shauna. And personally, 5 cards tend not to be enough with most stage decks. Colress is somewhat reliable(Especially with above listed decks of mass bench usage), but we all know the problem of having a starting hand with trainers and Colress. It don't get much.

One last thing to add, if you want to test side decks sure. If you want to test ban lists, sure. But please save one testing at a time. Testing them together means it can and will be much more difficult to determine which one is the problem and what card is a problem in which way. I'd say test a ban list with no side deck first. IF it becomes balanced, MAYBE add a side deck. That way you can determine which cards are a problem in the format first before you determine what is a problem as a potential tech in card. Baby steps.

 

[LunarWolf21]

Wally's Training does little to nothing for current evolution decks. It's basically Evosoda but worse since it only targets the active. Its only advantage is that it works under trainer lock. Evosoda is currently not the card people use to evolve: they play the Ball trainers. And the card just doesn't help Stage 2 decks enough: they are looking to get that quick Rare Candy to keep up. They do not need more cards to search out the Prinplups and the Frogadiers and the Dusclops: they can't keep up with just those. Even Garchomp cannot (re)cycle Gabites and Garchomps fast enough to keep up in this format, and that's really saying something.

I don't actually think those cards I mentioned would totally fix Stage 2 decks, just things that are overdue to them. But Wally's Training isn't really like Evosoda - you can play Wally's Training on the first turn, and on a Pokemon that was put into play that turn, unlike Evosoda.

So it's essentially Rare Candy, since you need the Basic + Stage 1 or 2 + Wally's, and then you have to wait a turn since you can't put the Basic in play, then evolve, then Wally's in the same turn. So it takes the same amount of cards and time as Rare Candy, so it's like running 8 Candy in your deck. You do have to run the Stage 1s though. Wally's actually helps Stage 1 decks the most, since you can evolve the Basic with Wally's immediately.

But as for Stage 2 decks, well, I've always thought they're inherently impossible to play the way they were intended to be played. SP Pokemon, and turning Stage 2s into Basic EXs, was the best they could hope for.

The only way I could see them fixing Stage 2 decks is if they made a Stadium that said "Both players can put Stage 1 and Stage 2 Pokemon into play without Evolving. A Stage 1 Pokemon put into play this way gives up 2 Prizes when Knocked Out, and a Stage 2 Pokemon put into play this way gives up 3 Prizes when Knocked Out."

I think that would break Dusknoir, but other than that, it would take something of that magnitude to really "fix" Stage 2 deck space. You just can't fit much stuff when you need 3 cards to play 1 Pokemon, and there's nothing short of a miracle that'll change that.

Edit: The bigger problem is that the evolving Basics and Stage 1s are useless on their own, and are only used to get the Stage 2 into play. If they gave them useful coming-into-play Abilities, and useful attacks, you wouldn't need a constant stream of Stage 2s every turn. The Stage 2 Pokemon really should just be the card that closes the game out, it shouldn't be something you have to spam every turn.

Okay, I've done some thinking on this format you're proposing, and allow me to put my input.

What would end up big?
Dark got nerfed, Keldeo got nerfed, but the only thing Genesect lost was G-booster and Colress machine(Which didn't matter as much since red signal). Much less, the slight nerf by G-booster loss is still BUFFED by other decks losing catcher and Lyssandre. Now, if you wish to say 'Why, it won't be that bad', consider it this way. This format has a trend of eliminating the heavy OHKO speed format, which I can agree with. However, what happens when you remove the speed? You get lots and lots of bench set up. So we end up with decks like Reuniclus, Cresselia, Crustle or something like that. Decks that need that set-up time and need those bench sitters. What counters this? Genesect. Genesect would end up completely ruling the format, especially with Emboar limitations(I see mostly 3-1-3 in my area for reference. If most players go 2-1-2, my apologies). If you truly wish to eliminate that big, 'heavy hitter' format for a more skill game, why is an attach catcher that can be brought back with shadow triad allowed through? That's what the first issue is.

I think in the OP's proposed format, Garbodor/Flareon would be real big, since Flareon hits Genesect hard, and Garbodor's only Semi-Limited, so a 2-2 line of Garbodor should still be enough to deal with Abilities. Thoughts?