JandPDS
New Member
Just which card pool would my way not be more equitable as a starting method then the system that we have in place now?
First turn advantage
- Thread starter QD4U
- Start date
- Status
Just which card pool would my way not be more equitable as a starting method then the system that we have in place now?
Otaku
Active Member
JandPDS, you did not say your way was more equitable, but made a flat out assertion that it would be equal, always. If you did not mean that, I apologize but in both the context of the conversation and the actual wording, that seems to be the most logical understanding of what you said.
Additionally, the ever present downside and yet simultaneous joy of most TCGs is how there are always new cards coming, so I am always leery of stating such things as absolutes.
Still, as an example, when the old Rare Candy text was in effect and one could still use it to Evolve a freshly played Basic into either Stage 1 or Stage 2 Pokemon, I would consider your example to be inferior. More than likely they would still be more or less just as abused, since under such circumstances going first is likely a loss, and indeed was during the time when that was indeed the case. In this case I'd prefer the current method because it is simpler, and doesn't feel like "special" treatment. To be clear decks could be run so that they rarely failed to set-up more Pokemon first turn, but then such decks were shredded because they were so loaded down with "opening" Pokemon.
Without cards like Sableye each player has an equal chance of going first, and perhaps the only thing worse than losing because you didn't get a single turn is getting that single turn but having no way of avoiding your fate save the same level of luck that gave your opponent the inevitable win. Pokemon is not structured in a manner that it is sometimes even possible to have a deck with a strong line-up but also that never starts without a Pokemon or Energy based method of filling your Bench and avoiding being donked.
This is why I emphasize donking is a separate issue that needs to be addressed. It always is a tantalizing reward for a player, and while not truly the problem plaguing this format, is one that would be easier to address without having to change extra rules or alter the card pool. That is to say, if for example a player did not lose automatically when their only Pokemon in play was KOed, but your opponent took a Prize at the beginning of each of your turns you lacked a Basic (or something similar, I am still trying to determine the best time to "check" and how often to apply the penalty) a donk would be less desirable than KOing something that actually had been invested in.
Additionally, the ever present downside and yet simultaneous joy of most TCGs is how there are always new cards coming, so I am always leery of stating such things as absolutes.
Still, as an example, when the old Rare Candy text was in effect and one could still use it to Evolve a freshly played Basic into either Stage 1 or Stage 2 Pokemon, I would consider your example to be inferior. More than likely they would still be more or less just as abused, since under such circumstances going first is likely a loss, and indeed was during the time when that was indeed the case. In this case I'd prefer the current method because it is simpler, and doesn't feel like "special" treatment. To be clear decks could be run so that they rarely failed to set-up more Pokemon first turn, but then such decks were shredded because they were so loaded down with "opening" Pokemon.
Without cards like Sableye each player has an equal chance of going first, and perhaps the only thing worse than losing because you didn't get a single turn is getting that single turn but having no way of avoiding your fate save the same level of luck that gave your opponent the inevitable win. Pokemon is not structured in a manner that it is sometimes even possible to have a deck with a strong line-up but also that never starts without a Pokemon or Energy based method of filling your Bench and avoiding being donked.
This is why I emphasize donking is a separate issue that needs to be addressed. It always is a tantalizing reward for a player, and while not truly the problem plaguing this format, is one that would be easier to address without having to change extra rules or alter the card pool. That is to say, if for example a player did not lose automatically when their only Pokemon in play was KOed, but your opponent took a Prize at the beginning of each of your turns you lacked a Basic (or something similar, I am still trying to determine the best time to "check" and how often to apply the penalty) a donk would be less desirable than KOing something that actually had been invested in.
r3skyline
New Member
i got donked severely because of this new first turn ruling. i didnt know about it as i was in army training for quite a while, and when i came back, i get donked? not fair, esp when i was able to drop a T2 Plume. :/
yea, its always fun to be double pluspowered with a dce zekrom for game...
yea, its always fun to be double pluspowered with a dce zekrom for game...
Its ok, but I think it should be the other way around (sorta)
Player 1 can use Supporters only, Player to can use both.
Miamisportsfan45
Active Member
I have a feeling that the EX formats will change this, though. I see a lot more Stage 2 Pokemon being played following the next set release. Aside from that, they may convert to older ex rules that we once had in play. Of course, this is only after B&W set block gets rotated.
I always found it to be pretty fair (or at least more fair) during the last ex era... Maybe that's why it's coming back.
JandPDS
New Member
No, with dual ball the ZPST player has to at least flip a few heads, Alowing them to play a Collector on T1 means that they will donk you when you go first, not when they go first. I would like the donks to be put off until T2 as much as possible.
Otaku
Active Member
The difference is Pokemon has embraced "set-up" attacks.
If we really believe that not attacking for damage and/or offensive attacks first turn is the way to balance the game, then the answer isn't changing the rules it's designing the cards that way in the first place! TPC needs to make sure nothing can attack offensively (not even weakly, but at all) for a single Energy, make sure Energy acceleration and Evolution acceleration isn't available unless it exists in a manner that costs you your attack for the turn.
This may be a little harder on the cards' designers, but it preserves the goal of making Pokemon rules easy for new players, but the foundation of the game requiring strong decision making skills (what's the best set-up attacks for my deck?) for experienced players. Quite frankly, it sounds like that is the designers' cross to bear.
If we really believe that not attacking for damage and/or offensive attacks first turn is the way to balance the game, then the answer isn't changing the rules it's designing the cards that way in the first place! TPC needs to make sure nothing can attack offensively (not even weakly, but at all) for a single Energy, make sure Energy acceleration and Evolution acceleration isn't available unless it exists in a manner that costs you your attack for the turn.
This may be a little harder on the cards' designers, but it preserves the goal of making Pokemon rules easy for new players, but the foundation of the game requiring strong decision making skills (what's the best set-up attacks for my deck?) for experienced players. Quite frankly, it sounds like that is the designers' cross to bear.
I disagree with that. Single energy attacks are useful. Of course their power needs to be limited but, it makes the game easier and it gives you a chance if you are getting bad draws and barely any energy. Even in a well built deck one can sometimes get bogged down by things that are not energy.
Otaku
Active Member
You want single Energy attacks as "recovery" attack options, and thus disagree with my assertion? Well first and foremost I was pointing out that instead of altering core game rules it is better to alter future cards instead, so I am not married to the idea.
You are free to disagree (of course) but think carefully about how you disagree and your reasoning. Why are low Energy attacks important? If it is a matter of "because sometimes I have bad luck and need a low Energy attack!", then we must make sure it is bad luck, and not
a) A player's opponent legitimately earning advantage and you running short of Energy because your opponent has successfully set-up and is correctly running his/her deck.
b) A player's deck was poorly designed and/or being poorly run; in many formats players (and I have been one of them) have become spoiled by a class of card having been an easy search the previous format.
We also have to remember luck is a part of this game. If skilled players with decks tailored to the metagame are constantly unable to power-up their Pokemon due to this shift, it is indeed folly. If a specific player's deck seems to always be running dry on Energy, it is reason "b" above, and if a deck periodically misfires, that's just the nature of Pokemon.
Try not to judge the suggestion by the exact current metagame and card pool. Even if TPC had this same thought and instituted it in their next new (even in Japan) set, that set is probably a year away... from Japan! I don't know exactly how the process works, but I the impression that set blocks are probably designed largely at once, with the cards being parceled out over the year and things being tweaked as time goes on.
So if this is a format without Pokemon Catcher or brutal sniping attacks that are easy to spam, or even Pokemon Reversal without Junk Arm, racking up OHKO after OHKO isn't going to be easy.
I never said defensive attacks for a single Energy, and I thought I made it clear (perhaps I did not) that set-up attacks were fine as well. You might have a Pokemon that attacks for Energy acceleration... and not just for the attacker. You might have an attack that either prevents your opponent from attacking the next turn, reduces the damage you take on the next turn, etc. If designed properly, having an Ability that does one or both is okay, so long as it isn't forcing us into a "donk or be donked" format, or even a "Player 1 wins because he Evolved and started OHKOing first" kind of metagame.
Lastly, Evolutions might be okay with single Energy attacks, so long as they aren't easy to spam effectively. It isn't a whole lot better having Donphan Prime x 6 racking up OHKOs or even 2HKOs starting second turn than it is having Zekrom donk you that player's first turn. With current HP scores, even with Donphan Prime slapping its own bench 60 damage for :fighting: was too much. Yanmega Prime and (in a well made deck) the likelihood of hitting for no Energy (and thus either attack as soon as it hits the field) is in a similar boat. Especially if we ditched (and didn't replace) Rare Candy, Stage 2 Pokemon hitting that hard for that little Energy are unlikely to cause a problem.
So as long as you aren't likely deserving the loss, while being unable to power-up any offensive attacks is a potential problem, it seems an unlikely one.
You are free to disagree (of course) but think carefully about how you disagree and your reasoning. Why are low Energy attacks important? If it is a matter of "because sometimes I have bad luck and need a low Energy attack!", then we must make sure it is bad luck, and not
a) A player's opponent legitimately earning advantage and you running short of Energy because your opponent has successfully set-up and is correctly running his/her deck.
b) A player's deck was poorly designed and/or being poorly run; in many formats players (and I have been one of them) have become spoiled by a class of card having been an easy search the previous format.
We also have to remember luck is a part of this game. If skilled players with decks tailored to the metagame are constantly unable to power-up their Pokemon due to this shift, it is indeed folly. If a specific player's deck seems to always be running dry on Energy, it is reason "b" above, and if a deck periodically misfires, that's just the nature of Pokemon.
Try not to judge the suggestion by the exact current metagame and card pool. Even if TPC had this same thought and instituted it in their next new (even in Japan) set, that set is probably a year away... from Japan! I don't know exactly how the process works, but I the impression that set blocks are probably designed largely at once, with the cards being parceled out over the year and things being tweaked as time goes on.
So if this is a format without Pokemon Catcher or brutal sniping attacks that are easy to spam, or even Pokemon Reversal without Junk Arm, racking up OHKO after OHKO isn't going to be easy.
I never said defensive attacks for a single Energy, and I thought I made it clear (perhaps I did not) that set-up attacks were fine as well. You might have a Pokemon that attacks for Energy acceleration... and not just for the attacker. You might have an attack that either prevents your opponent from attacking the next turn, reduces the damage you take on the next turn, etc. If designed properly, having an Ability that does one or both is okay, so long as it isn't forcing us into a "donk or be donked" format, or even a "Player 1 wins because he Evolved and started OHKOing first" kind of metagame.
Lastly, Evolutions might be okay with single Energy attacks, so long as they aren't easy to spam effectively. It isn't a whole lot better having Donphan Prime x 6 racking up OHKOs or even 2HKOs starting second turn than it is having Zekrom donk you that player's first turn. With current HP scores, even with Donphan Prime slapping its own bench 60 damage for :fighting: was too much. Yanmega Prime and (in a well made deck) the likelihood of hitting for no Energy (and thus either attack as soon as it hits the field) is in a similar boat. Especially if we ditched (and didn't replace) Rare Candy, Stage 2 Pokemon hitting that hard for that little Energy are unlikely to cause a problem.
So as long as you aren't likely deserving the loss, while being unable to power-up any offensive attacks is a potential problem, it seems an unlikely one.
- Status