jimu and Sabu

[Otaku]

That was my point, Vaporeon.

 

[psychup2034]

I have mixed feelings about this card. I mean a supporter that works half the time is just nasty for the players playing it. This card can end up being just like Pokemon Reversal in terms of uselessness and brokenness. I don't think these card designers learn from past mistakes.

I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about. The Rocket's Trap (comboed with Rocket's Sneak Attack and of course, Itemfinder) was amazingly disruptive, yet not broken. That format was certainly a lot of fun to play in. Now as a Supporter (and without Rocket's Sneak Attack), I'm failing to see how this card is broken at all. They're bringing back some cards from the old days, which is absolutely awesome. :lol:

Sometimes I feel like you're whining just for the sake of whining.

 

[vaporeon]

I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about. The Rocket's Trap (comboed with Rocket's Sneak Attack and of course, Itemfinder) was amazingly disruptive, yet not broken. That format was certainly a lot of fun to play in. Now as a Supporter (and without Rocket's Sneak Attack), I'm failing to see how this card is broken at all. They're bringing back some cards from the old days, which is absolutely awesome. :lol:

Sometimes I feel like you're whining just for the sake of whining.

You can't compare a supporter to a card to a trainer you can play 4+ or a turn. That's broken in the same way reversal was. Just the ability to take 12 cards from an opponents hand is broken so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

What I was saying is why would a player use a supporter that works half the time and what I meant by broken was broken in the same way reversal way.

 

[psychup2034]

You can't compare a supporter to a card to a trainer you can play 4+ or a turn. That's broken in the same way reversal was. Just the ability to take 12 cards from an opponents hand is broken so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

What I was saying is why would a player use a supporter that works half the time and what I meant by broken was broken in the same way reversal way.

Claiming that The Rocket's Trap is broken because "Just the ability to take 12 cards from your opponent's hand is broken" doesn't make sense. Would you say that Exeggutor HS is broken because "Just the ability to do over 1000 damage to your opponent's Pokemon is broken?" You're thinking theoretically, while I actually played (and did really well) during the format where The Rocket's Trap was legal. It wasn't broken, it wasn't in every deck, it didn't dominate the format.

Also, Reversal wasn't broken, just luck-based. Similarly, Catcher isn't broken either.

 

[Shen]

Claiming that The Rocket's Trap is broken because "Just the ability to take 12 cards from your opponent's hand is broken" doesn't make sense. Would you say that Exeggutor HS is broken because "Just the ability to do over 1000 damage to your opponent's Pokemon is broken?" You're thinking theoretically, while I actually played (and did really well) during the format where The Rocket's Trap was legal. It wasn't broken, it wasn't in every deck, it didn't dominate the format..

Playing 4 Rocket's Traps in 1 turn is far more likely than having 25+ energy on Exeggutor. Though I agree no one really played it over Lass.

 

[vaporeon]

Claiming that The Rocket's Trap is broken because "Just the ability to take 12 cards from your opponent's hand is broken" doesn't make sense. Would you say that Exeggutor HS is broken because "Just the ability to do over 1000 damage to your opponent's Pokemon is broken?" You're thinking theoretically, while I actually played (and did really well) during the format where The Rocket's Trap was legal. It wasn't broken, it wasn't in every deck, it didn't dominate the format.

Also, Reversal wasn't broken, just luck-based. Similarly, Catcher isn't broken either.

The same thing could be said about reversal. I played in in the last ex format and did really well. To my knowledge, I was the only one playing the card. Also, Exeggutor HS is a bad example. If you want to commit 25+ energy to the card, then more power to you and good luck but with The Rocket's Trap, it was only 4 deck spaces plus Item Finder. What makes it broken, is it relies on a coin flip and picks 3 cards from an opponents hand. now what if 3 were played in 1 turn and each landed heads? Thats 9 cards gone.

Much like reversal last format. It was broken because 1 side could flip heads and the other side could flip all game, like we saw at worlds. That was the only reason for catcher being printed to take that luck factor out of the game. In defense for this card. lets just say for 4 supporter turns, player a fliped heads on Jimu and Sabu while player b flips tails for them. player b will say the card is broken. Really and card with a game changing effect that relies on a coin flip is and should be considered broken.

 

[StormFront]

What made The Rocket Trap broken wasn't just the fact it was a trainer. It could also be comboed with Imposter Oak's Revenge (Salamance anyone?), which is essentially a one sided Judge. Hooligans would have been a much better and more balanced card if it allowed the player to flip 3 coins rather than being a wasted supporter for the turn or crippling the opponents hand, especially early on.

 

[Tash]

There are currently 6 supporters in BW-on: Juniper, Chenron, Bianca, N, Cilan and this. Juniper has a significant drawback, Bianca has an activation requirement, N is wasted before late game, and Cilan is pretty useless after you're set up.

Turns with no supporter used will be a LOT more common without the HGSS sets, so there will be more opportunities to use things like this without "wasting your supporter" for the turn.

 

[Otaku]

I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about. The Rocket's Trap (comboed with Rocket's Sneak Attack and of course, Itemfinder) was amazingly disruptive, yet not broken. That format was certainly a lot of fun to play in.

You didn't play competitively when Trapper decks (as they were known) were legal, did you? I didn't either, but that was when I got involved with Pokemon League and wanted to play in more tournaments (unfortunately, there were few in the area at the time).

I talked (and regularly got pwned) by the players who did travel and play in tournaments at the time, and of course read what I could online. So right now, it is my tiny bit of experience and their word versus yours. Just in case I totally misunderstood, I'll resist throwing your own words to vaporeon back at ya: maybe I was in an isolated meta and didn't know it. I'll even hold off posting a detailed explanation of how Trapper decks (yeah, they were their own deck ) worked.

Now as a Supporter (and without Rocket's Sneak Attack), I'm failing to see how this card is broken at all. They're bringing back some cards from the old days, which is absolutely awesome. :lol:

Updating old cards is great... when it is done right. This format has a bad record for that according to many players. Something to remember; just because a card is "tails fails" doesn't make it bad, even as a Supporter.

While still an Item, we learned this with Pokemon Reversal: it flew under the radar for years because it tended to only be available when it was outclassed by something else. Once it was the best option, you realized "Flip a coin. If heads, take a Prize, probably ruin opponent's set-up" was well worth it. Junk Arm just kicked things into overdrive and we truly had a flip-tastic format.

There is always the risk that something like this will be "broken" either by combos or through stubborn player patterns or (most probable, though still overall unlikely) a combination of both. If someone can figure out a build that can afford to risk that opening Support on this... that's pretty good. Still far less potent than The Rocket's Trap unless we get some Item or easy to TecH and spam Pokemon versions of the other combo pieces, but cards can and have been "broken" by degrees. A small mountain is still a mountain, as are the most towering peaks.

Tash brings up a good point as well: one format's junk is another format's treasure.

 

[psychup2034]

You didn't play competitively when Trapper decks (as they were known) were legal, did you?

I played competitively from 1999-2005, qualifying for every single STS and Worlds along the way. I took a hiatus from the game in 2006 to attend college, got a job, got back into the game this year, and clinched my Worlds invite yesterday at Regionals. In short, yes, I played competitively when TR came out. Did I win tournaments using trapper decks? Yup.

I talked (and regularly got pwned) by the players who did travel and play in tournaments at the time, and of course read what I could online. So right now, it is my tiny bit of experience and their word versus yours.

The types people that complained about trapper decks back in the day are the same people you see complaining about cards like Junk Arm, Pokemon Catcher, and Mewtwo EX today. (I'll point you to Sirlin's page about scrubs for an explanation of exactly which type of people I'm talking about.)

Was the format partially luck-based? Yes, similar to other card games like Poker and Blackjack, Pokemon is a little luck-based.

Were the best players consistently winning? Yes, the best players were able to understand how to build solid lists within the format, and succeeded as a result.

Are there always going to be people who complain and whine about the format? Yes, just look at this thread...

 

[Otaku]

I played competitively from 1999-2005, qualifying for every single STS and Worlds along the way. I took a hiatus from the game in 2006 to attend college, got a job, got back into the game this year, and clinched my Worlds invite yesterday at Regionals.

So the next time I won't give you the benefit of the doubt that when you tell me something that contradicts the facts that it is being done in ignorance.

In short, yes, I played competitively when TR came out. Did I win tournaments using trapper decks? Yup.

So you were a beneficiary of failed game balance? You do realize that puts a heavier burden on you to prove your claims?

One always needs to screen for bias: just as there is an incentive for someone who would gain from toppling a "good" system to give false testimony about said system, so too is there an incentive for someone who benefits from preserving a flawed system.

The types people that complained about trapper decks back in the day are the same people you see complaining about cards like Junk Arm, Pokemon Catcher, and Mewtwo EX today. (I'll point you to Sirlin's page about scrubs for an explanation of exactly which type of people I'm talking about.)

So... in your mind, relying on a normal Trainer with a 50% chance of nailing three cards from your opponent's hand, in a format with the best level of draw, search, and recursion power (also normal Trainer based) is equivalent to today?

Quite frankly I think you're belittling the current format; the general consensus is that the game is moving to fast, not that we are back to "Flippymon". :smile:

As for that article, there's a reason most people balk at it when they first read it; it ignores a large part of life. It's built upon a see of relative morality. The game's designer is put in the role of "God" and can make no mistakes. If you can't spot its flaws right away (hint: I am also a fighting game fan :wink then again, no sense wasting time.

The whole thing reads as some guy trying to justify doing things to win that he doesn't feel right about, but doesn't want to admit to it. I mean, when his best defense is that a bunch of flawed people designed the system, and since the system designed by imperfect people allows it, it must be correct? His article boils down to "the ends justify the means... sort of".

I'll remain a "scrub", thank you kindly.

Was the format partially luck-based? Yes, similar to other card games like Poker and Blackjack, Pokemon is a little luck-based.

A TCG using the standard randomized deck and draw from the top is always partially luck based. A format full of disproportionately powerful cards is even more luck based. A format where some of those cards reside wholly on a successful coin toss is even more luck based.

Plus of course, the nature of the game where there is no downside to going first means the unless there is a "skillful" way to determine who goes first, we yet another layer of luck being added in.

Given that I am a lowly "scrub", apparently the format was very luck based, since I still could win a few games. :biggrin: In fact, for a short time I was the local best player.

Were the best players consistently winning? Yes, the best players were able to understand how to build solid lists within the format, and succeeded as a result.

You've got a lot of assumptions in the statement. Pointing them out to you will be met with more thinly veiled insults, so I won't waste time going through them. I mean, most are things inherent to a children's trading card game so it usually takes a lot of self-deception to ignore them.

Are there always going to be people who complain and whine about the format? Yes, just look at this thread...

Are there always going to be players who think winning is the only thing that is required to be a good player? Are there players who think the only thing that makes a game fun is winning? Will there be those that don't go to that extreme, but still espouse it's underlying beliefs? Yes, yes there are.

We have fundamentally different views of what makes this game good; plenty of "bad players" actually perform quite well at tournaments.

 

[baby mario]

As for that article, there's a reason most people balk at it when they first read it; it ignores a large part of life. It's built upon a see of relative morality. The game's designer is put in the role of "God" and can make no mistakes. If you can't spot its flaws right away (hint: I am also a fighting game fan :wink then again, no sense wasting time.

The whole thing reads as some guy trying to justify doing things to win that he doesn't feel right about, but doesn't want to admit to it. I mean, when his best defense is that a bunch of flawed people designed the system, and since the system designed by imperfect people allows it, it must be correct? His article boils down to "the ends justify the means... sort of".

I'll remain a "scrub", thank you kindly.

There's a lot of good stuff in that article that can be usefully applied to Pokemon.

Specifically, the part about people think that there's something wrong if you are not winning games with 'difficult' or 'innovative' strategies. They will handicap themselves with a bunch of 'rules' that only exist in their own heads and complain about others who don't follow them.

At least, that's what I take from it anyway.

 

[psychup2034]

So you were a beneficiary of failed game balance? You do realize that puts a heavier burden on you to prove your claims?

You mentioned that you played in the format, so I would imagine that you knew that Trainer lock—which was quite common in the day—had an advantageous matchup against TRT/RSA decks. Let’s reword what I said: “I’ve won tournaments playing trapper decks, and also won tournaments in a trapper-filled meta using other decks.”

You have a very fickle and subjective view of what “game balance” is.

One always needs to screen for bias: just as there is an incentive for someone who would gain from toppling a "good" system to give false testimony about said system, so too is there an incentive for someone who benefits from preserving a flawed system.

Your point here is irrelevant. I performed well in tournaments during the early EX era (2004-5) as well. It’s not like I can only play well in a concentrated format. Give me any format and I’ll try my best to do well and improve as a player.

As for that article, there's a reason most people balk at it when they first read it; it ignores a large part of life. It's built upon a see of relative morality.

I disagree here. I feel like most people balk at the article because they find some of their own flaws illuminated by the author. When I first read it years ago, it changed my perspective about how to approach deck construction and helped me see some of the flaws in how I thought about the game.

The game's designer is put in the role of "God" and can make no mistakes. If you can't spot its flaws right away (hint: I am also a fighting game fan ) then again, no sense wasting time.

The game designers can and do make mistakes. Remember the midseason rotation? That was a direct response to a problem in the game caused by the mismatch of release dates and rules between Japan and the rest of the world. I agree that there could be improvements within the game (first turn rules probably need to change), but I disagree that cards like Junk Arm, Pokemon Catcher, Mewtwo EX, or even Jimu and Saba are broken.

Are there always going to be players who think winning is the only thing that is required to be a good player? Are there players who think the only thing that makes a game fun is winning? Will there be those that don't go to that extreme, but still espouse it's underlying beliefs? Yes, yes there are.

Winning (this year, championship points) are the most objective measure of how good the pool of active players are. Of the characteristics that define a good player (intuition, deckbuilding ability, quick decision making, a good sense of probability, etc.), only sportsmanship is not reflected in “winning.”

We have fundamentally different views of what makes this game good; plenty of "bad players" actually perform quite well at tournaments.

There’s a difference between “performing quite well” and “consistently performing quite well.”

 

[Otaku]

baby mario: Yeah, problem being the rest of the article .

Win at all costs: if it isn't against the rules it's good!

If someone claims the game isn't perfect, they are a scrub! They not only shouldn't be allowed to besmirch my beloved victory-delivery-system, but should be ostracized for their blasphemy!

Unless I basically meditate and read that article in the best possible frame of mind... that's what I get out of it. If that really isn't what is intended, maybe I keep misreading it, or maybe it is a little less clearly written than it needs to be, broaching such a topic.

I've been on both sides of this, or at least was deluded enough to mistake myself for a good "player" and have the proper frame of mind to understand the "pro" side of this. I've been that guy who was getting pwned in a game until he selected a fighter with a pretty blatantly overpowered move.

Even if "the best" players could deal with it, yeah just because the best can handle something doesn't mean it is balanced. Players clearly more skilled than I was would lose because they couldn't counter the technique... and if I stopped spamming it I would lose!

The attitude this article espouses is the same I remember playing basketball against the so-called "good" players. If we "bad" players ever started performing well, they'd start pulling tricks like "accidentally" throwing the ball at our legs. If it worked, we both stumbled and fell and the ball rolled out of bounds. As far as they were concerned, it was just a great way to get out of being stranded because they stopped for a shot they could no longer make, and there wasn't an open person to pass to.

psychup2034: Like I said, we view this game quite differently. First let me clarify: I consider Jimu and Sabu a needless risk. If the format gets too light on supporters, players have room to run a Supporter that fails half the time because they won't have access to anything better anyway. The "drawback" isn't there like there would be right now.

Second if there are any effects that allow extra Supporter uses, this is one that begs to break such an effect. It isn't set in stone, but I see no reason to release such cards and take the risk. The most likely outcome is that the card is a waste of space, mere filler... and the next most likely outcome is it being "broken" via the metagame. It being a "balanced" card worth running requires some real specific circumstances.

So as we view the game so differently, yes a "bad" player can perform consistently well: I am sorry I wasn't clear that sportsmanship is a flat out requirement to be a good player in my eyes. A lot of my "vague" qualifiers become much more clear once you remember we are playing a children's card game, meant to be fun and accessible to all.

I am curious though: so were Dark Vileplume decks really popular in your area? Headache Psyduck? I am trying to think of Trainer lock decks that didn't use Neo Genesis Slowking, since a deck being vulnerable to Mind Games... isn't really vulnerable. Now if I really am missing something else, please let me know; I need to learn.

 

[psychup2034]

psychup2034: Like I said, we view this game quite differently. First let me clarify: I consider Jimu and Sabu a needless risk.

I consider Jimu and Sabu to be very similar to Cyrus' Initiative. It's a card that wasn't given much attention until Sablelock was "broken" in Florida. Is it a risky play that might not be good in the current format? Sure it is. But the potential for creative deckbuilding with a card like Jimu and Sabu should not be overlooked.

If the format gets too light on supporters, players have room to run a Supporter that fails half the time because they won't have access to anything better anyway. The "drawback" isn't there like there would be right now.

No-one's going to run Jimu and Sabu because the format is getting too light on supporters. People are going to run Jimu and Sabu as part of a larger, disruptive strategy to win the game.

I am curious though: so were Dark Vileplume decks really popular in your area? Headache Psyduck? I am trying to think of Trainer lock decks that didn't use Neo Genesis Slowking, since a deck being vulnerable to Mind Games... isn't really vulnerable. Now if I really am missing something else, please let me know; I need to learn.

I'm thinking of the Base to Gym Challenge format (which is what I assumed you were talking about). For 2 months (between the release of The Rocket's Trap in Gym Heroes and the release of Chaos Gym in Gym Challenge), trapper decks were probably the BDIF. With Chaos Gym trapper decks became much more interesting/difficult to play. Hay Fever was also really popular where I played, since it was a direct response to Chaos Gym. There was often a race between whether a trapper deck could get Rocket's Sneak Attack quick enough to prevent the Breeder + Vileplume.

With the release of Neo Genesis, Rocket's Zapdos + Special Metal Energy + Gold Berry became really good. It utilized disruption very well, and was able to set up/draw prizes despite being disrupted.

Slowking wasn't really "broken" until a while later. As it got more popular, more people played it. Eventually Donphan/Slowking and Dark Feraligatr/Slowking took the STS, and the first and only ban in the history of Pokemon of competitive cards was issued. (______'s Pikachu and Ancient Mew were not competitive bans.)

Keep in mind that metagames between two areas were very isolated back in 2000. The best source of Pokemon information was Pojo, and even then, there was a delay in spreading information about "what won" certain events. Today, I can almost instantly find out what won California's 2 Regionals from New York, whereas similar information would have taken a while to trickle over to the east coast just 10 years ago.

 

[Otaku]

No-one's going to run Jimu and Sabu because the format is getting too light on supporters. People are going to run Jimu and Sabu as part of a larger, disruptive strategy to win the game.

While I may have been oversimplifying, in short I disagree.

I'm thinking of the Base to Gym Challenge format...

I chose not to quote the entire segment, because I am not arguing finer points. I cannot, for one thing: my knowledge of the pre-Neo Genesis time period, at least in a "nationally competitive" light is completely based on reconstruction. You're the first person to suggest that Dark Vileplume decks were heavily played, and despite my often antagonistic sounding posts, I would be foolish to dismiss this out of hand, but this is also why I stated that it wasn't the case anywhere I could look.

I will trust you to determine yourself if I was in error or if perhaps your local metagame had a higher than normal concentration of the deck. Of course, I will also stress that I am operating under the model where a "good" Trapper deck is going off on its first turn. So I will ask that if you have an example deck list handy for what you consider a "good" Trapper and/or a "good" Dark Vileplume deck, that you PM me with it/them. I am trying to figure out how the average Trapper deck couldn't shut down Dark Vileplume before it even began.

Slowking wasn't really "broken" until a while later. As it got more popular, more people played it. Eventually Donphan/Slowking and Dark Feraligatr/Slowking took the STS, and the first and only ban in the history of Pokemon of competitive cards was issued. (______'s Pikachu and Ancient Mew were not competitive bans.)

Are you not counting Sneasel as a "competitive" ban because it was preemptive? As for Sneasel not "really" being broken until a while later, this is a difference of definition. It sounds like you require broken cards to be heavily played to be classified as such, I don't.

That may sound odd, but let's take it to the furthest extreme. While of course the hypothetical cards I am about to present are preposterous, they aren't crafted to be real examples but exaggerated ones to demonstrate the underlying logic. What if we had a Victini that had an Ability that let you take up to Six Prizes when it was played from your hand to your Bench. For some reason, another Victini was released had an Ability that let you take up to three Prizes when it was Benched from your hand.

Since you can only run four Victini in your deck, and there are no drawbacks in the version that allows you to take up to six Prizes when it was Benched, of course the six Prize version would be a staple, and quite broken! However, that doesn't mean the "three Prize" version is balanced, does it? The former is just "more broken" than the latter.

Keep in mind that metagames between two areas were very isolated back in 2000.

Again, just quoting the first sentence as a point of reference: we do agree about this. Even now local metagames can make a major difference.

 

[psychup2034]

Are you not counting Sneasel as a "competitive" ban because it was preemptive? As for Sneasel not "really" being broken until a while later, this is a difference of definition. It sounds like you require broken cards to be heavily played to be classified as such, I don't.

I mean "broken" in the sense that it "broke into the metagame," which is why I put it in quotes. For example, Cyrus' Initiative wasn't "broken" into the format until around this time last year, despite the card having been around for a long time.

Also, I said "the first and only ban in the history of Pokemon of competitive cards," emphasis on the plural for cards. Slowking and Sneasel were banned on the same day.

That may sound odd, but let's take it to the furthest extreme. While of course the hypothetical cards I am about to present are preposterous, they aren't crafted to be real examples but exaggerated ones to demonstrate the underlying logic. What if we had a Victini that had an Ability that let you take up to Six Prizes when it was played from your hand to your Bench. For some reason, another Victini was released had an Ability that let you take up to three Prizes when it was Benched from your hand.

Since you can only run four Victini in your deck, and there are no drawbacks in the version that allows you to take up to six Prizes when it was Benched, of course the six Prize version would be a staple, and quite broken! However, that doesn't mean the "three Prize" version is balanced, does it? The former is just "more broken" than the latter.

A Victini that lets you draw 6 prizes upon coming into play is broken.
A Victini that lets you draw 3 prizes upon coming into play is broken.
A supporter card that gives you a 50% chance of shuffling 3 random cards from your opponent's hand into his/her deck (in a format without Sableye), isn't broken.

 

[baby mario]

baby mario: Yeah, problem being the rest of the article .

Win at all costs: if it isn't against the rules it's good!

If someone claims the game isn't perfect, they are a scrub! They not only shouldn't be allowed to besmirch my beloved victory-delivery-system, but should be ostracized for their blasphemy!

I guess we interpret the Sirlin article very differently. I didn't see it as taking any kind of stance on whether a game is 'perfect' or not, I think it's pretty neutral on that issue. It just advocates the use of every legal, available tool to win.

(That's not the same as 'win at all costs' which implies cheating and poor sportsmanship are acceptable).

Take the first turn rules . . . we all know that they are a long way from being perfect. So what should a player do? Should they refuse to take a donk win when the chance comes because they think it's unfair? Should they refuse to play the kind of deck or cards that can exploit the first turn rules, just because they don't like them?

The Sirlin article says 'no, that would be ridiculous', and I agree. But just because I am prepared to take advantage of the first turn rules, doesn't mean I think they are good for the game.

 

[Otaku]

Also, I said "the first and only ban in the history of Pokemon of competitive cards," emphasis on the plural for cards. Slowking and Sneasel were banned on the same day.

Not trying to be a grammar Nazi (because quite frankly I am not skilled enough to be one, even if I felt like it), but "ban" is singular, not plural, while "history of Pokemon cards" indeed has "cards" as plural... but "history of Pokemon card" doesn't make much sense.

Of course, some of the confusion might be due to your statement that Slowking and Sneasel were banned on the same day... and they weren't. Sneasel was banned at the very beginning of Modified, but Slowking didn't join him in the box until later; if Bulbapedia is correct it wasn't Banned until the end of 2002. That would have been during "Neon" Modified; Sneasel was never momentarily "un-banned".

A Victini that lets you draw 6 prizes upon coming into play is broken.
A Victini that lets you draw 3 prizes upon coming into play is broken.
A supporter card that gives you a 50% chance of shuffling 3 random cards from your opponent's hand into his/her deck (in a format without Sableye), isn't broken.

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here.

Did you understand the point of my example? Yes, both blatantly overpowered Victini are broken even though of course, you'd only run the version that let you take more Prizes. Of course, some of this discussion is owed to you and I using the term "broken" differently.

What really gets me is that yeah is your last sentence... so you figured out a situation where a Supporter that gives a 50% chance of shuffling three random cards from your opponent's deck is broken then? Since you felt the need to emphasize "in a format without Sableye"? That was kind of my point.

Right now, I believe Bad Team's Jimu and Sabu is not only not "broken", but is actually somewhat weak. Most of the time, you're going to need that Supporter usage for a different effect. The right cards come out, and it becomes part of a "broken" combo. If the format was greatly altered, it might become broken in and of itself; I learned with Pokemon Reversal that just because a card fails half the time doesn't mean it is "safe".

I realize you have no problem with Pokemon Reversal; I do. I think the effect when it works is so good it more than outweighs when the effect fails. We are technically better off having Pokemon Catcher, since at least then we aren't also blending overpowered effects with extra "luck" requirements.

baby_mario: Like I said, I think we read that article very differently. I'll wait until I am less agitated and try again. I got my fill of "one-player" two-player TCGs in Yu-Gi-Oh; and I learned long ago that even the person losing should be having fun.

Now something for a different thread is "what does a participant owe in a tournament? Does it vary depending on the kind of tournament?" At a Pre-Release I've helped a player beat me before (one time I think it was intentional) by giving them honest advice when asked. They were new (or in the case of one guy, legally blind) and so I wasn't going to lie to them so I could win.

Where we differ is I have been exposed far too much to the win at all costs mentality, and Sirlin's article is their mantra. It reminds me of terms like "soft cheating", and left a very bad taste in my mouth. If you're only "in it to win it", seek help. At least enjoy the game... and some of us can't enjoy it playing that way. I discourage such players from wasting time with a tournament, however.

 

[psychup2034]

Of course, some of the confusion might be due to your statement that Slowking and Sneasel were banned on the same day... and they weren't.

You're right, Sneasel was banned first. My mistake.

I realize you have no problem with Pokemon Reversal; I do. I think the effect when it works is so good it more than outweighs when the effect fails. We are technically better off having Pokemon Catcher, since at least then we aren't also blending overpowered effects with extra "luck" requirements.

You're right, I don't have a problem with Pokemon Reversal or Pokemon Catcher. Neither card is broken.

The two decks sitting at the final table of the world championships final table didn't run Pokemon Reversal last year. Must be because the card is so broken and bad for the game, right?

Look, I understand that you have subjective views about which cards are broken or not, but there are always cards that will be the "strongest." You have the right to have your own opinion, but all I sense from your opinion is bitterness.