Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Fairy type in the TCG

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't personally feel every type needs to be represented and that Fairy and Dragon are already pushing it. Types like Bug and Rock aren't different enough from types like Grass and Ground, respectively, to justify being seperate types. Plus, really, I like the idea that weaknesses are relatively easy to exploit. (Within reason. As I said above, Fighting is effective against too many Pokemon, for instace.) It means that most Pokemon can have a hard counter if need be. Splitting that up too much makes it harder to hit certain Pokemon for weakness. Certain types just won't likely get very good Pokemon. We've already seen that with Fire (Reshiram being about the only exception) and Grass (though Genesect/Virizion may change that a little, they won't be enough to make Grass a "good" attacking type despite hitting things like Keldeo for weakness). Making every type represented would make that worse. (I can't imagine there being a lot of good damage-dealing Ghost or Bug types, for instance.)
 
Fairy wasn't added to make the TCG deeper and more interesting, it was added to get people to buy the cards on back of the hype of the new video game type. There's really no reason for them to ever spilt up the current TCG types.
 
Otaku said:
@bullados: Okay. So for serious suggestions about using the VG color coding, see my previous post.

For those (like myself) that want Dual-Type Pokémon, I think it can be done but not alongside (or not easily) along side another "special" mechanic. See how Team Plasma cards were done? I think that has to be done with Dual-Type Pokémon (were they to be introduced) to keep the game accessible to younger players; different color border, reminder text in upper right hand corner of card art, extra symbol in background of text.

Of course, if other mechanics are revised (like having multiple Weaknesses and Resistances on cards in general instead of just special cases) then we might be able to handle it by blending the Energy Types (half and half, checkerboard, swirl, or maybe some other pattern) and clearly having both Types depicted in the "Type" corner.



Given historical precedent, if a new "Type" of Energy is created, then a card that provides "every Type of Energy" or "your choice of Energy Type" or something to that effect will provide/will be able to provide the new type. This already happened with Rainbow Energy, one of the predecessors of Prism Energy: Rainbow Energy was originally released in Team Rocket, the fourth (fifth counting our first reprint set, Base Set 2) set released but provided :dark: and :metal: Energy as soon as we got a ruling on that (which I believe was before the next set after those Energies first came to be).
Click to expand...
I didn't know when rainbow had first came out... So that helps a lot. Thanks! :)
 
Furn said:
Fairy wasn't added to make the TCG deeper and more interesting, it was added to get people to buy the cards on back of the hype of the new video game type. There's really no reason for them to ever spilt up the current TCG types.
Click to expand...

Touching upon what you and rivershock are saying, the video games have too many Types.

I've posted long diatribes over this before; the taxonomical system used to classify Pokémon is very irritating, with dissimilar elements forced to equivalency, and aspects that should be at best "sub-Types" elevated to full "elemental" Type status. Plus the Weakness/Resistance/Immunity relationships are often arbitrary (for game balance) or superficial (its how we thought as little kids).

So with respect to what you say, as long as the TCG is based on the video games and trying to emulate them, I believe it to be a legitimate argument that the other video game Types are "needed" in the TCG. It would make the TCG more complicated, but at least it would be because we had all the "pieces" we could of the video game mechanics. Instead it is like trying to complete a puzzle with pieces missing. =/
 
They should use this chance to eliminate all the self-weaknesses that have been damaging metagames for an age--make psychic properly weak to Dark, Fairy to Steel, and Dragon to Fairy

Self-type weakness has only ever been bad for the game. It creates situations ala Mewtwo EX where the best counter for a strong card weak to its own type is always itself.
 
Dragon being weak to Dragon will always make more sense than Dragon being weak to Fairy in my opinion. Dragons' generally brutal nature makes it fitting. Similarly, Psychic's weakness to Ghost is its most prominent weakness by far, to the point where it's really their only logical weakness (Bug and Dark only counting for gameplay balancing, though Dark isn't necessarily illogical.) TCG weaknesses, with the exception of Ice's to Metal, Bug's to Fire (though being weak to Colorless would be odd as it's primarily for Normals, not Flyings), Water's to Grass (obviously for balancing issues so the entire massive type isn't weak to Lightning) and Normal's to Fighting (though that is its only Video Game weakness, and thus kinda necessary), tend to be their most logical weakness. (For instance, Fires have never been weak to Fighting in the TCG, ignoring Houndoom who is part Dark, despite all Fire-Types being weak to either Rock or Ground.)

And this has only really ever come up for Mewtwo EX. Splashable Dragons and Psychics have always been rare. Still, if Ghost became part of Darkness, Psychic would become weak to Darkness instead. (Though Poison would still be weak to Psychic, given a weakness to Fighting would cause many more problems to the TCG and be less logical, so this wouldn't settle your complaint.)

There are many bigger problems than this... Fighting being such a good attacking type, for one, (Fairy will likely fix this a little by giving Darkness a weakness to Fairy, however) and types like Grass and Fire not having any weakness variation. (Well, Grass has a few thanks to Bug/Flyings, but they only make up a tiny fraction of the massive type.)
 
I think that if/when they introduce the Ice type they'll have to change the weaknesses on the Dragon Pokemon to that or possibly go back to dual weaknesses.
 
Based on what has been said about Fairy-types, They will most likely be weak to Metal, have Resistance to Dragon, and have their own Energy card. And Dragon will continue to have mixed type requirements. Also some Fire and Psychic types may have Resistance to Fairy. This is all based on conjecture of course, but it seems like the best way to do things.

Besides this way Metal types can have more of a comeuppance and Fairy wouldn't be as overhyped as Dragon was. Although we may find a similar hype as Dragon in the way of people scrambling to find Energy accel for Fairy-type (which they will probably give us. lolz)

Also it'd be cool to see dual-types make another appearance. You know with the mixed symbols. Like Fennekin's evolution could have a purple circle for Psychic and an orange flame for Fire. That'd be epic.
 
Last edited:
@rivershock: You gave me a lot to discuss, but for the part that is directly TCG relevant and almost entirely objective, skip to my next to last quote of your post and the responses under it.

rivershock said:
Dragon being weak to Dragon will always make more sense than Dragon being weak to Fairy in my opinion. Dragons' generally brutal nature makes it fitting.
Click to expand...

Dragon being treated in the same vein as "elemental" Types is already awkward: what makes it "Dragon" and not Dark, Fire, Normal, etc. for the attack? Arbitrary video game logic, because they want there to be a Dragon-Type. So making the appeal that "brutal nature" is weak to "brutal nature" doesn't really seem all that logical; if anything Dragons would likely be resistant (brutal deals with brutal) or neutral. It really is all arbitraryanyway, as the Type system is full of overlapping or poorly identified concepts (is Ice attacking through low temperatures or is it wielding solidified Water? Both? Why?). That being said, if the Fairy-Type is about attacking with "magical" effects, that very much makes sense for "dragons"; in many settings it is the only way to deal with them!

rivershock said:
Similarly, Psychic's weakness to Ghost is its most prominent weakness by far, to the point where it's really their only logical weakness (Bug and Dark only counting for gameplay balancing, though Dark isn't necessarily illogical.)
Click to expand...

Psychic having issues with Ghost is pretty arbitrary; in many fantasy settings, "psychics" would be the only ones to have a chance at dealing with "ghosts", though given my own thoughts on such things in real life I rather approve of said relationship. Bug being a poor choice is only because Bug is combined with Grass in the TCG. Darkness would be the best unless they plan on adding another Type in, as it is a 1:1 conversion of the video game Dark-Type and thus avoids erroneous relationships.

rivershock said:
TCG weaknesses, with the exception of Ice's to Metal, Bug's to Fire (though being weak to Colorless would be odd as it's primarily for Normals, not Flyings), Water's to Grass (obviously for balancing issues so the entire massive type isn't weak to Lightning) and Normal's to Fighting (though that is its only Video Game weakness, and thus kinda necessary), tend to be their most logical weakness. (For instance, Fires have never been weak to Fighting in the TCG, ignoring Houndoom who is part Dark, despite all Fire-Types being weak to either Rock or Ground.)
Click to expand...

Again, most of these relationships are contrived, based on (sometimes erroneous or exaggerated) real world relationships. I play various games, and especially role-playing games like GURPS (not to be confused with JRPGs and the like) really help you think about how fiction and legend handles such things. For example, "psychics" (Psychic-Type) facing off against "martial artists" (chi users) could be justifiably flipped; we already have the Normal-Type to represent "regular" punching, kicking, etc. so chi-using martial artists would actually have what it takes to reduce the effectiveness of psychic powers... meaning a neutral or inverse (compared to what we are used to) relationship is just as plausible.

Now, if you were just meaning in terms of "options for simplifying video game relationships"... you have way too many exceptions for that to be a good argument. @_@ I don't consider it your fault, it is just that the situation is bad. I've gone through this before (as I rant about this too much in CotDs), but most Pokémon should probably lack Weakness due to "Type confusion". What do I mean?

To avoid Type clashing with current video-game-to-TCG conversions:

Normal-Type Colorless Pokémon should have no Weakness or Resistance.

Fighting-Type... er... Fighting-Type Pokémon should have no Weakness and Darkness Resistance.

Flying-Type Colorless Pokémon would still be Lightning-Type Weak but be Grass Resistant.

Poison-Type Psychic Pokémon should have no Weakness and Grass Resistance.

Ground-Type Fighting Pokémon should have Water Weakness and Lightning Resistance.

Rock-Type Fighting Pokémon should have Steel Weakness and either Fire Resistance, Colorless Resistance, or both!

Bug-Type Grass Pokémon should have Fire Weakness and no Resistance.

Ghost-Type Psychic Pokémon should have no Resistance and Darkness Weakness.

Metal Pokémon should have Fire Weakness and either Colorless Resistance, Darkness Resistance, Dragon Resistnace, Grass Resistance, Metal Resistance, Psychic Resistance, some combination of the preceeding, or all of the preceeding.

Fire-Type Pokémon would have no Weakness and either Grass Resistance, Metal Resistance, or both.

Water-Type Water Pokémon should have Lightning-Type Weakness and Fire Resistance, Metal Resistance, Water Resistance, a combination of the preceding, or all of the preceding.

Grass-Type Grass Pokémon should have Fire Weakness and Lightning Resistance.

Lightning Pokémon should have no Weakness and either Lightning Resistance, Metal Resistance, or both.

Psychic-Type Psychic Pokémon should have Darkness Weakness and no Resistance.

Ice-Type Water Pokémon should have Fire Weakness, Metal Weakness, or both.

Dragon Pokémon should have Dragon Weakness and Fire Resistance, Lightning Resistance, or both.

Darkness Pokémon should have no Weakness and Darkness Resistance.

rivershock said:
And this has only really ever come up for Mewtwo EX. Splashable Dragons and Psychics have always been rare. Still, if Ghost became part of Darkness, Psychic would become weak to Darkness instead. (Though Poison would still be weak to Psychic, given a weakness to Fighting would cause many more problems to the TCG and be less logical, so this wouldn't settle your complaint.)
Click to expand...

This has been an issue for the game since Mewtwo (WotC Black Star Promo 3, 14). It wasn't the beginning of the game but the earlier version of this promo was available since the theatrical release of Pokémon: The First Movie and was probably the dominant force of the format from then until Neo Genesis. Pretty sure that this has been influencing the game since at least then, and possibly longer (Base Set Jynx was played but just not as effective as Hitmonchan and Electabuzz).

Remember that "splashable" isn't the concern; dominant is. When a strong Psychic-Type deck ascends, it often becomes a matter of play Psychic: either what is dominant or whatever is easy to splash. The worst case scenario is the Mewtwo EX scenario (or dominant Psychic deck v dominant Psychic deck). I've actually looked at shuffling the Type relationships around (though it has been a while since I actively did so): Ghost really does work best with Psychic. Consider the impact of shifting Poison to Darkness; thematically they blend well, plus "black" works for Poison (to be fair, most colors do) but the big thing is that means the remaining Psychic and Ghost-Types could have a more homogenous relationship.

rivershock said:
There are many bigger problems than this... Fighting being such a good attacking type, for one, (Fairy will likely fix this a little by giving Darkness a weakness to Fairy, however) and types like Grass and Fire not having any weakness variation. (Well, Grass has a few thanks to Bug/Flyings, but they only make up a tiny fraction of the massive type.)
Click to expand...

Fighting being a good attacking Type is a "feature". Fixing it is mostly about tweaking Weakness/Resistance rules and (ideally) shifting Rock to Metal... and of course avoiding the "fast, hard hitting" push that had dominating game design lately.
 
pokebeach has a scan of fairy type basic energy up, so we are getting another basic energy, now just need to see if dragon gets a basic type or will it remain multicolor like before
 
That is really interesting. I wonder why they haven't produced a Dragon energy yet.
 
I wonder what gameplay features would make someone want to play fairy types? I'd rather have new types be created so that people play the type for what it does best, and not because they like the pokemon in that type.

What I am saying is, I just hope it isn't the same thing with a new coat of paint. From what I can see, pulling specific types in a pack is already hard enough as it is. I hope Fairy type, with it's own basic energy is the final type to be added.

Nah what am I kidding, even the Japanese site says more colors, rainbow, all the colors in the world, which makes me think that they are going to continue adding more colors to the point the game isn't playable anymore.

Dragon will never have its own energy because Dragon's gimmick is to use specific types of energy, while Colorless's gimmick is to use any energy.
 
Otaku said:
Perhaps they'll finally get "Healing" and other often maligned defensive/disruptive effects right for Fairy Types?
Click to expand...

Grass normally does healing, although to itself.

Metal normally prevents damage

I guess fairy can prevent status conditions. Darkness is about discarding opponent's cards, but I don't seem to think there is any type that is all about drawing cards, although I think a type that is all about drawing cards may be a bit too powerful.

It seems TPC does not really strictly enforce gameplay differences with each type. It seems that if you play one type, another type can do close to the same thing with some minor differences. What I like to see in the future is for people to play a type because it has a certain gameplay strategy, and not because they like that type of pokemon, meaning you can't like fighting types and hate combo attacks.
 
I personally don't care much about the inclusion of Fairy Types. So it's another type that will likely be super effective against dragon. I just hope they do decent theme decks with Fairy type with a decent amount of energy. When has there ever been a theme deck with a good amount of Steel/Darkness energies?

They are being a bit lazy when comes to existing things like weakness and resistance. If I remember correctly there have been cards with dual weakness/resistances in older sets. I can see why they took it out. Too much weakness and things start to depend on typing. But it could easily be put in if either all pokemon had dual weakness or if just the very powerful pokemon cards like stage 2 or rare basic pokemon had dual weakness.

Speaking of powerful cards my bets are on Mega-Evolutions being the next Ultra rare cards in the X/Y series though they do seem to overlap with the old Lvl X cards. Maybe Lvl X will return as Mega Evolutions but thats for another thread.

Anyhow they are being a bit lazy when it comes to introducing new things to the TCG. They could easy recycle old ideas like dual typing and dual weakness, but do them properly. I don't mind dragon being the way it is atm, even if it's harder to play them since you aren't always forced to add a new energy type to play them. The salamence line requires Fire/Water which is already easily obtainable from many theme decks. I really like what they did with Snorunt/Abomasnow in Plasma Blast where the cards were Water Energy type yet the moves cost Grass Energy. That sort of overlapping is nice, especially as they don't over do it with too many cards. Maybe it could be implemented in the future where more powerful moves use 2 different energy types like Dragons do now. There isn't all to much room for experimentation currently since all everyone (well a large majority anyway) does is play the same OP decks like TDK and Genesect/Virizion. Hopefully Fairy type and X/Y shakes things up a bit.
 
mahius said:
I personally don't care much about the inclusion of Fairy Types. So it's another type that will likely be super effective against dragon. I just hope they do decent theme decks with Fairy type with a decent amount of energy. When has there ever been a theme deck with a good amount of Steel/Darkness energies?

They are being a bit lazy when comes to existing things like weakness and resistance. If I remember correctly there have been cards with dual weakness/resistances in older sets. I can see why they took it out. Too much weakness and things start to depend on typing. But it could easily be put in if either all pokemon had dual weakness or if just the very powerful pokemon cards like stage 2 or rare basic pokemon had dual weakness.

Speaking of powerful cards my bets are on Mega-Evolutions being the next Ultra rare cards in the X/Y series though they do seem to overlap with the old Lvl X cards. Maybe Lvl X will return as Mega Evolutions but thats for another thread.

Anyhow they are being a bit lazy when it comes to introducing new things to the TCG. They could easy recycle old ideas like dual typing and dual weakness, but do them properly. I don't mind dragon being the way it is atm, even if it's harder to play them since you aren't always forced to add a new energy type to play them. The salamence line requires Fire/Water which is already easily obtainable from many theme decks. I really like what they did with Snorunt/Abomasnow in Plasma Blast where the cards were Water Energy type yet the moves cost Grass Energy. That sort of overlapping is nice, especially as they don't over do it with too many cards. Maybe it could be implemented in the future where more powerful moves use 2 different energy types like Dragons do now. There isn't all to much room for experimentation currently since all everyone (well a large majority anyway) does is play the same OP decks like TDK and Genesect/Virizion. Hopefully Fairy type and X/Y shakes things up a bit.
Click to expand...

Do you think TPC goes through R&D and playtesting when they make new sets? Even if TPC did that, do you think that when TPCi brings that set over, that all the R&D and playtesting is all for nothing?
 
signofzeta said:
What I like to see in the future is for people to play a type because it has a certain gameplay strategy, and not because they like that type of pokemon, meaning you can't like fighting types and hate combo attacks.
Click to expand...

Why not? Pokemon is as much about the creatures as the battles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top