Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

jimu and Sabu

All I sense from yours (psychup2034) is self-assurance but insubstantial arguments is some hidden guilt. Lucky for you I know I am a bad judge of character when I am debating someone. :lol: Otherwise I'd assume you focus on the "bitterness" because it is your protection. You say to yourself "I can't be wrong. If I am wrong about this, I am wrong about a lot of other things. So he must be wrong. He seems bitter, so since he must be wrong, I bet it is his bitterness clouding his judgment, regardless of his actual arguments!"

Edit: Though I've entertained the above notion, the preceding paragraph is just to point out that one heated thread (or even a few) does not give a full picture of a person. Based one what I know, psychup2034 just enjoys the game in a different manner than I do, and has a different idea of what the game should be.

baby_mario's post are really making me think though, and I thank him for this. To be fair, so are psychup2034's posts, but the thinking I am doing there is more "How do I prove this point to him", while baby_mario's posts make me ask "How do I verify this point for myself?"

Is there bitterness? Yes. The thing is, that's only bad if psychup2034 is largely correct in his stance, or if I am completely wrong. If I am correct, even only partially, the bitterness is warranted and there is reason for grievance.

I explained why I believe that a card doesn't need to be in every deck to be "broken", including a winning deck. I had to use ridiculous, made-up cards to do it, but psychup2034 seemed to agree, at least in that instance.

Now onto the matter of why a card I considered "broken" wasn't in the top placing World's decks. The World Championship decks use what works for them, player and deck, not what works for everyone or every deck. That particular Emboar/Magnezone deck didn't run Pokemon Reversal. I can see why; it was incredibly crowded and despite the potency of Pokemon Reversal, the space was needed elsewhere.

The Truth for not running Pokemon Reversal I would think obvious; things like that are why I have some trust issues with you, psychup2034. :wink: By your accomplishments, you are a skilled player. Fortunately I just remembered how many times I am not only wrong, but blatantly wrong on simple matters, so I guess if you can't explain to me why it is obvious, I am merely in good company. I would expect one to realize that running a lot of Items in a deck that blocked Item usage would be counterproductive. The actual list used what, six Items? Three Candy, three Communication? Those were included to help stabilize the set-up.

I'll allow that maybe it is me: was the deck not supposed to set-up Vileplume a significant majority of the time? Not whether or not it could function without Vileplume, but I am asking if the core strategy was such that a significant number of match-ups The Truth doesn't bother setting up Vileplume? Can still be a minority, but I got the impression that the vast majority of the time it wants Plume to hit the field ASAP.

If Vileplume is supposed to be in play the vast majority of the time, running Pokemon Reversal doesn't make sense. The deck list is tight, and Pokemon Reversal will only be useful roughly half the time The Truth is "failing". It makes much more sense to focus on stabilizing the combo, because it is key to making the offense work. While I don't think you could rely on Suicune & Entei LEGEND in all match-ups, it did provide the ability to hit the Bench as well if you could get two Rainbow Energy onto it.

I don't mind some card's being the "strongest"; I believe balance is an ideal to strive for, but not something that will realistically exist in the game, with every card being different but equal. I don't argue for "sameness". I argue for a fun, competitive game. Note the order. We don't agree on what the game should be: I get that. Right now it looks like TPC agrees: I get that. I have both reason and incentive to voice my disagreement and see if others join me, since that is incentive for TPC to change its mind: do you get that?
 
Last edited:
Otaku, I'm pretty sure you missed his point. If Pokemon Reversal was a broken card, then every deck would have used it. A "broken" card has such a good effect that every deck must use it or they are at a disadvantage (take Neo Genesis Sneasel for example).

Now the 1st place deck didn't use Reversal. That must mean it's not broken. Cohen obviously wasn't at a disadvantage.
 
And... you clearly missed my point; that that is not how I (or many) define broken. I even gave an example, using two blatantly broken hypothetical cards, but the first meant the one would never be used. Did that make the second balanced? No, it just meant it wouldn't see play. That isn't the same thing.

You are free to keep disagreeing with me, but please don't tell me I am missing the point when I too am clearly disagreeing and outlining how I disagree.
 
EliGagerNorris said:
This obviously isn't going anywhere. :)
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that is obvious; you are repeating points from earlier in the discussion that I challenged, but not actually answering those challenges. So even if I am wrong on this point, instead of using this as a venue for discussion, it's comes across as the sterling rebuttal of "Are too!"

That doesn't exactly sound like you were posting to further the discussion, just for laughs.

EliGagerNorris said:
Both Victinis are broken cards. They both have ridiculously good effects.
Click to expand...

We have a disagreement over what constitutes "broken", that I get...

...however there is a common understanding (based on your own words) that a card doesn't have to even be in every winning deck to be "broken". Yet you reiterate the defense for Pokemon Reversal is "it wasn't used in the two winning decks last format". Now, if a card doesn't have to be in every winning deck in order to be "broken", how does its absence "prove" that it isn't broken?

This is a different defense then had you said "I believe it is perfectly healthy for the game to possess an easy-to-use Item whose only cost is that it fails half the time, with the capacity to render the Bench no safer than the Active position (because that Benched Pokemon is going to be forced Active by said Item)." I don't agree with that as a general statement for the game, but at least I can understand it.

tl;dr: "Broken" may just be the same as "staple" to you, but for me it is about "cost versus return". I don't consider "staple" cards to be a good sign of game health either, but a staple card isn't automatically broken.

A stapled card would definitely be illegal, though. :lol:

EliGagerNorris said:
Not sure if trolling. :p
Click to expand...

I think QD4U just failed a reading check and thought you were talking about the real Victini discussed earlier in the thread and not my hypothetical ones that we actually were discussing. :lol:
 
Last edited:
I've tried posting a response 4 times now, something's messing up. I'll go over what I said again.

There is a fine line between "broken" cards and "overpowered/format changing" cards. Some people say they are essentially the same thing.

"Broken" cards (at least according to my opinion :p) change the format in a way that makes matches dull, boring, and much more luck based(once again my opinion).

Take for example Slowking (Neo Genesis). This card had an amazing, stackable, and bench-sitting ability that essentially took your opponent out of the game. Whoever played first had such an extreme advantage. It made games long and boring.

"Overpowered" cards also change the format. Some people say for the worst, some say for the better. An example being Rare Candy, making Stage twos more viable.

Pokemon Reversal and Pokemon Catcher are also examples. They helped change the format into fast paced matches with powerful, high HP basics leading the charge, instead of a format with bench sitters setting up main attackers. I personally like the new format.

"Overpowered" cards also usually have their fair share of counters. Catcher has Vileplume, Zebstrika, and Switch among others. Mewtwo EX has itself, Mew Prime, and certain big basics.

In short, it pretty much all comes down to opinion whether a card is "broken" or not.

I don't think Catcher is broken, I don't think Reversal is broken, and I don't think Jimu and Sabu is broken.
 
Clearly we disagree (well, not about Jimu and Sabu), but that isn't a big deal. I am going to call "foul" on your counters to Pokemon Catcher; the only card that is as versatile (but no where near as potent) as Pokemon Catcher is Switch.

What was my complaint about Pokemon Catcher/Pokemon Reversal? Oh right, enabling an easy OHKO of basically anything on the Bench. Switch does nothing to counter that, since you can't use Switch on a Pokemon that has been Knocked Out. If Switch could be Activated during my opponent's turn, then it would be a counter to Pokemon Catcher. ;)

I won't delve into it, but I've learned I've been far to liberal in my usage of the term 'counter'. I mean, when it comes to balance a card that counters and balances out a powerful card must work on a format wide level. The sign something is countered isn't that a few (even the best) deck or two skips it, it is that the countered card's usage drops significantly. I wish I could be more precise, but this is a long enough post already. :lol:
 
Otaku said:
What was my complaint about Pokemon Catcher/Pokemon Reversal? Oh right, enabling an easy OHKO of basically anything on the Bench.
Click to expand...

The fact that Pokemon Catcher makes the bench no longer "safe" doesn't make it broken. In fact, Pokemon Catcher can add levels of strategy and skill to the game (unlike past broken cards like Sableye in a first-turn-Trainers format).

For example, I played CMT at Regionals this weekend, and in one of the rounds, I intentionally played a Smeargle on the bench to "bait" the Catcher and force my opponent to attach more energy to Mewtwo EX in order to Catcher + kill my Smeargle, allowing me to respond with the OHKO using my own Mewtwo EX.
 
Otaku said:
Clearly we disagree (well, not about Jimu and Sabu), but that isn't a big deal. I am going to call "foul" on your counters to Pokemon Catcher; the only card that is as versatile (but no where near as potent) as Pokemon Catcher is Switch.

What was my complaint about Pokemon Catcher/Pokemon Reversal? Oh right, enabling an easy OHKO of basically anything on the Bench. Switch does nothing to counter that, since you can't use Switch on a Pokemon that has been Knocked Out. If Switch could be Activated during my opponent's turn, then it would be a counter to Pokemon Catcher. ;)

I won't delve into it, but I've learned I've been far to liberal in my usage of the term 'counter'. I mean, when it comes to balance a card that counters and balances out a powerful card must work on a format wide level. The sign something is countered isn't that a few (even the best) deck or two skips it, it is that the countered card's usage drops significantly. I wish I could be more precise, but this is a long enough post already. :lol:
Click to expand...

My point remains the same. Catcher certainly changed the format: I enjoy the change, you may not. It's all about opinion whether a card is deemed too good.
 
It is an improvement over Pokemon Reversal, but that isn't saying much. ;) As for opinion... technically true, but not all opinions are equal; opinions are about prefernce but they can be based on facts.

After all, by the reasoning that is is "all about opinion", then we end up in a relativity quagmire and remember those two joke "broken" Victini I made up? Well now they are no more or less broken, so long as someone decides that "in his [her] opinion", they aren't.

People who hate Pokemon in general or who have questionable sanity can have opinions as well. ;)
 
Otaku said:
It is an improvement over Pokemon Reversal, but that isn't saying much. ;) As for opinion... technically true, but not all opinions are equal; opinions are about prefernce but they can be based on facts.
Click to expand...

Otaku, do you care to explain how your opinion that Pokemon Catcher is broken is based on fact? From what I can tell, your opinion about Pokemon Catcher just reflects your bitterness and resentment about this format.

Here are the facts:
  • City championships this season had Pokemon Catcher in the format. A myriad of decks performed well during cities, like Magneels, Chandyplume, 6 Corners, Durant, etc. If you look at the list of Cities winning decks, there's a boatload of variety. Pokemon Catcher did nothing to limit the number of playable decks. In fact, in a format with Pokemon Catcher, we had so many playable decks that people were complaining that the format was too "rock-paper-scissors" in the sense that getting lucky matchups was more important than playing skill.
  • Pokemon Catcher changes the format, but also adds skill to the game. Gone are the days (at least temporarily), where games are about who can get their ideal setup of multiple Stage 1 and Stage 2 Pokemon first. Decks have to be more adaptable now to the fact that the bench is no longer safe. I've seen misplays happen when a player has "benched the wrong Pokemon" and lose the game as a result.
  • Pokemon Catcher (with the help of N) makes wild comebacks a possibility. A player less frequently loses a game because your opponent took the first prize and you could never recover. Both sides have to be more prudent about managing their resources to recover from the loss of a key Pokemon.
You're right not not all opinions are equal. Those opinions based on fact should be given more weight, so please justify your assertion that Pokemon Catcher is broken using facts. Sure, Pokemon Catcher allows easier OHKOs of a benched Pokemon, but allowing an easy OHKO of a benched Pokemon adds skill to the game and allows for better differentiation between those players who can manage their resources well and those players who cannot.
 
psychup2034 said:
[*]Pokemon Catcher changes the format, but also adds skill to the game. Gone are the days (at least temporarily), where games are about who can get their ideal setup of multiple Stage 1 and Stage 2 Pokemon first. Decks have to be more adaptable now to the fact that the bench is no longer safe. I've seen misplays happen when a player has "benched the wrong Pokemon" and lose the game as a result.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent point.

Everyone seems to define 'broken' differently, but I would say a card is broken when it ruins the game. In my opinion, Catcher changes the game, rather than ruins it. Of course, if you believe that Pokemon is only enjoyable when Benched Pokemon are very difficult to target, and that you should be free to set up stuff over a few turns with little or nothing to fear, then it may be that Catcher is ruining the game for you.

But it isn't making the game unplayable. It isn't creating a situation where every game is a 50-50 regardless of player skill.

It does make some decks a poor choice to play, but then there are always cards that have done that.

As for Otaku's two broken Victini . . . well, cards are only broken or not according to the context of the format. the 3 Prize version would be ridiculous in any real life format ever, but in a format with the 6 Prize version? It's useless set-filler that would never be played. They brought Sneasel NG back in Undaunted (more or less) . . . it was a decent enough Basic for decks that wanted to run Weavile.
 
Well, I'll say Catcher is broken on the fact that it attacks a part of the game that's suppose to be 'safe'. A card that says take 3 cards from your opponents hand is broken because it targets a fairly private part of the game for a high amount or cards. It's also like playing a card that says 'choose 1 card from your opponents deck and discard it'. Catcher is broken in the same way Pot Of Greed in yugioh is and that's because the card is too easy to play. Now, if catcher had some other catch to it, like behind in prizes.etc, then it would be okay.

Another reason Catcher is broken is because of Junk Arm and the first turn rules. While I now feel Catcher is a option to the format. it add a bit of player skill but not skill to the over all game. The card would be much skillful if we were not in a OHKO format.

Before anyone says if I understand what broken is, I consider broken by it's effect on the overall game and player interaction, not if it played in every deck or not.
 
vaporeon said:
Well, I'll say Catcher is broken on the fact that it attacks a part of the game that's suppose to be 'safe'.
Click to expand...

This isn't the video game. Your benched Pokemon have never been safe. There have been bench damaging attacks since Base Set, not to mention that the predecessor to Pokemon Catcher—Gust of Wind—was printed in Base Set as well.

Where are you getting this notion that the bench is supposed to be "safe"? It seems like in your mind, the bench is supposed to be "safe," but it reality, it's not.

vaporeon said:
Catcher is broken in the same way Pot Of Greed in yugioh is and that's because the card is too easy to play.
Click to expand...

Switch is easy to play. Must be broken.
Revive is easy to play. Must be broken.
Energy Search is easy to play. Must be broken.
Heavy Ball is easy to play. Must be broken.

vaporeon said:
Another reason Catcher is broken is because of Junk Arm and the first turn rules. While I now feel Catcher is a option to the format. it add a bit of player skill but not skill to the over all game. The card would be much skillful if we were not in a OHKO format.
Click to expand...

So you're saying... Pokemon Catcher adds a bit of player skill, but doesn't add to the skill of the overall game? What does that mean? What's the difference between "player skill" and "skill to the overall game"? (To me, it doesn't seem like there is a difference and you're just contradicting yourself.)
 
vaporeon said:
Well, I'll say Catcher is broken on the fact that it attacks a part of the game that's suppose to be 'safe'.
Click to expand...

No.

It attacks a part of the game that you would like to be safe. That's not the same thing.

There's no rule that the Bench should be a safe place for Pokemon, no underlying principle, no unwritten law (even the VG has Roar) - they are 'in play' just as much as the active. The most you can say is that the Bench should be safer than the active - which it is, as you don't need Catcher to attack the active and spread/snipe attacks tend to do less damage and/or have higher costs than those that target the active.

Again it's a matter of people having different opinions on what the game should be like.
 
psychup2034 said:
Switch is easy to play. Must be broken.
Revive is easy to play. Must be broken.
Energy Search is easy to play. Must be broken.
Heavy Ball is easy to play. Must be broken.
Click to expand...

Pot of Greed is easy to play, not a hard to trade for/buy, and has an insanely powerful effect that 9 times out of 10 can win you the game. (It's also luck based, but depending on what you draw the game can end right there.)

Catcher is easy to play, not hard to trade for/buy, and has an insane;y powerful effect that 9 times out of 10 can win you the game. (It lacks the luck factor of Reversal, but depending on what you drag up can win you the game right there.)

Those other four cards, not so much. People complained about Pot of Greed. People complained about Catcher. These two cards were deemed unfair by a lot. How many have complained about Heavy Ball and Switch thus far?

I use Catcher in a lot of my decks, but I still deem it broken and won't miss it when it's gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top