I don't really get it either. A month ago so many people were like "This set is going to be awesome!!" Then we lose four Trainer cards until the next set in February and now this is the worst set ever.
Misstep in Boundaries Crossed Release
- Thread starter ryanvergel
- Start date
- Status
I don't really get it either. A month ago so many people were like "This set is going to be awesome!!" Then we lose four Trainer cards until the next set in February and now this is the worst set ever.
Kayle
Active Member
Okay, take out two cards from my list.
That's still a pretty sizable list of playable, chasable, and worthwhile cards.
A ton of those cards are reprints
Kayle
Active Member
Landorus, Blastoise, Keldeo, Dusknoir, Cresselia, Celebi, Skyla, and Computer Search are not reprints.
totoro
Active Member
AyameHikaru
Active Member
Ours had quite a bit less than last time, but there happened to be a lot of local events that fell either on the same weekend or on the weekend before.
ChaosJim
Member
It seems strange to me. Like JWittz, I don't see myself buying packs of this set. This will be the first set since before Dragon Frontiers that I haven't bought at least 1 box of.
The argument about foresight etc doesn't seem to resonate with some people. Let me put it this way: a team of people in Japan made a set of choices. It appears that someone has insulted the work they did by altering it. This seems especially strange given the value Asian cultures place on respect.
If Potion etc really needed reprints for some reason, they could've put them into Dragon Vault as foils and people would've complained a little but enjoyed the foil treatment.
The argument about foresight etc doesn't seem to resonate with some people. Let me put it this way: a team of people in Japan made a set of choices. It appears that someone has insulted the work they did by altering it. This seems especially strange given the value Asian cultures place on respect.
If Potion etc really needed reprints for some reason, they could've put them into Dragon Vault as foils and people would've complained a little but enjoyed the foil treatment.
ApachePrime
New Member
Or put them in this set, in addition, as opposed to instead of.
ApachePrime
New Member
Otaku
Active Member
I quoted more of what StormFront posted to put it into perspective. Sadly for StormFront, I don't think said statement was correct, but the main mistake was naming 5%. I think players are often far too forgiving, but I suppose since we don't truly drive sales we have to be; would "you" (generic you) want to purchase an video game expansion where only 5% of it was any good? That is not accounting for personal tastes issues; you may like some of the "not good" stuff, but you may hate some of the good stuff, so the "real" percentage could vary up and down quite a bit.
To keep things shorter than my usual, if all the "good stuff" is amongst rarities that aren't at least one guaranteed per pack (excluding the Rare being replaced by a higher Rarity card), that is not appealing. I don't want to buy a full box and only have three chase cards to show for it (other than bulk trade fodder). I don't want to buy a pack and find the only thing with real trade value I pulled is the Parallel Holo.
So of what you just listed, Keldeo EX, Landorus EX, Computer Search, and Gold Potion should all be useful for play and sought after by collectors due to their rarity. Said rarity is also why they are not good alternatives to useful Uncommons; isn't someone usually doing good by pulling three total cards of the Pokémon-EX/Full Art/Ace Spec/Secret Rare level per box? I just haven't been able to afford boosters in a while, so please let me know if I got that wrong.
The Full Art Supporters are only useful if your actually trying the "bling" strategy, or for some reason cannot get a hold of their more common counterparts. Generally, I would expect you could trade a Full Art version of an Uncommon Trainer for at least two of that Trainer, if not a play set. Here is where perspective matters; if having more Full Arts doesn't result in an actual increase of their pull rate (they are 1 in X packs whether or not the total amount of Full Arts is 6 or 9), then you have to compare them to the rest of the Full Arts in the set. Maybe you are lowering the chance of pulling a Full Art Celebi EX, but you're also lowering the odds of pulling a Full Art Keldeo EX or Landorus EX.
Town Map may be good (it has been debated), but I don't see it as something you want to run more than one of in a deck (could be my mistake). Blastoise is good, but it is at least a Rare, correct? Odds of pulling it aren't too good. That might actually be good if the Blastoise in the Ice Shock theme deck we are supposed to be getting actually is the Deluge version (yes I am a bit paranoid and worry we'll get some promo version of a different Blastoise instead). Squirtle is good, but far from great. It is a good deal better than the average "filler" Evolving Basic Pokémon. Wartortle is not in the same boat. It is a high functioning poor card, and most of the time a player will be only running one, maybe two in case something interferes with Rare Candy.
Terrakion is a Secret Rare reprint of a normal Rare. This does little to increase availability, and mostly matters because it prevents it from rotating out (something I wouldn't mind seeing, along with many of the top cards in this format). The equivalent Japanese sets lacked it, so hopefully this difference doesn't goof up the format at a later rotation (unlikely). Most it is another money card you'll have to be very lucky to pull.
Many of the Trainers inserted into this set are functional, but they are also in abundant supply and easy to acquire, so pulling these versions just means you didn't get an Uncommon you desired more, like Skyla, and again is going to just mean the "average" player is getting less value in a booster than if the other Uncommons had been left in.
You already listed Blastoise, and it isn't in the set twice. Minimal experimentation will like prove Vileplume to be unworthy. The same goes for Hugh. Those are my personal results, but I make enough mistakes I won't insist I am right. Audino may come into its own next set, but for now isn't all that exciting. Charizard is exciting but also a long shot, unlikely to fair much better than Vileplume as even if it functions better in a deck, it has Water Weakness in a set expected to spawn the next big Water deck. Ditto actually is exciting, as is Dusknoir. As stated, pulling a "reprint" that is a high rarity collectible is only good if it replaced something worth less, and if you manage to pull it at all.
Some of it is normal internet nerd rage, and cannot really be understood except in the abstract. When you think of it as taking some of the more attainable good/interesting cards (e.g. Uncommon Trainers) out to put filler in (at the equivalent rarity), there is just a lot less "meat" to the set. If we got this set without knowing what Japan got (not complaining about information sharing; pretend we got the set first), it is just less "good stuff" with more filler. Still "good stuff" present, though.
tl;dr: The people saying they aren't buying boosters are doing so because boosters are likely to be less cost effective than purchasing the singles. Now instead of buying the box and getting a dozen useful Uncommons in addition to the high rarity pulls... it is just the high rarity pulls. When viewed from a single booster perspective, your odds of pulling something "good" plummeted.
Swordfish1989
New Member
To be fair, the last pre-release also had a new type coming out which prompted a LOT more people to attend it than any other pre-release. I know my DRX PR had at least 20-30 more people than usual.
Kayle
Active Member
Buying boosters was never cost effective over buying singles... As I see it, that isn't, nor was it ever, the point.
I won't debate that losing Ether and Escape Rope is disappointing (I'm meh on the others). But the set is still pretty awesome.
That's preeeetty much my case right there.
I'd rather you not try to argue about the rarity thing either because the precedent for Pokemon cards has been good (pokemon) = rare. Again, losing trainers is disappointing, but that doesn't actively make the set worse. The set is still good and not out of the ordinary (now that we know Ace Specs aren't too hard to pull).
Aron Figaro
New Member
Since we're talking about playable cards at every rarity slot:
Common: Squirtle, Scyther, Duskull, Rattata, Dunsparce (once Virzion NVI rotates, maybe), Psyduck, Potion, Switch
Uncommon: Wartortle, Delcatty, Dusclops, Raticate, Skyla
Aside from Raticate and the very lovely Skyla, these are either evolving basics, reprints, or questionable.
Rare: Bellossom, Toxicroak, Swoobat, Audino
Holo: Vileplume, Blastoise, Charizard, Dusknoir, Keldeo (maybe), Scizor (maybe), Ditto, Stoutland
Overall, this is about average for how awful pokemon sets are, guys.
Common: Squirtle, Scyther, Duskull, Rattata, Dunsparce (once Virzion NVI rotates, maybe), Psyduck, Potion, Switch
Uncommon: Wartortle, Delcatty, Dusclops, Raticate, Skyla
Aside from Raticate and the very lovely Skyla, these are either evolving basics, reprints, or questionable.
Rare: Bellossom, Toxicroak, Swoobat, Audino
Holo: Vileplume, Blastoise, Charizard, Dusknoir, Keldeo (maybe), Scizor (maybe), Ditto, Stoutland
Overall, this is about average for how awful pokemon sets are, guys.
ryanvergel
New Member
Swoobat? Bellossom? Charizard? Scizor? Regular keldeo? Toxicroak?
None to ALL of those.
Psyduck? Potion and switch reprints?
Dunsparce? There are other double drawers.
None to ALL of those.
Psyduck? Potion and switch reprints?
Dunsparce? There are other double drawers.
GodBlessAmerica
New Member
The bolded cards are all bad. Swoobat is a fun card, which is why I didn't bold it as well.
When I was drafting, I was looking at the cards and saying, "Why did I pay $20 for this?" I've never thought that about drafting any other set ever (I didn't play drafts for COL). I looked at a wobbofett and saw that it occupied an uncommon slot, thought, "man this art is horrible, everything about this card is unpleasant, oh no I have to choose this card because it's the last one passed to me."
Dark explorers had a few cards that made you think, "why is this in here? There is a holo Haxorus but no axew or the middle evolution?", but there were a lot of really great cards in that set. Cheren, Bianca, Juniper, ultra ball, dark patch all in the uncommon slot and that just includes the trainers. DRX had very few trainers in the uncommon slot, but a lot of the holos were at least somewhat playable.
TLDR; This set is horrible, and if you think the percentage of playable cards is anywhere near good, you are in denial.
Otaku
Active Member
Actually, for a time it was. Maybe not in your area, but where I used to play. While the actual cash market for cards was hard to find, most players still used the cash values as a basis for trading; since one Uncommon can be nearly worthless and another a nearly a staple, players didn't like making bad trades based on rarity alone.
This is not the current state of the area I am talking about; in fact this was at least five years ago. Still (and I am speaking in terms of USD) we began to see Commons (other than basic Energy cards) valued at $0.25 to $0.50 a piece, Uncommons between $0.50 to $2.00, "normal" Rares between $1.00 and $10.00 (both being extremes), and Holo-Rares going for $5.00+.
Parallel Holos were worth more than their regular counterparts, and tended to vary, but the general pattern was that Parallel Holo Commons went for a $1.00, while everything else was worth at least $1.00 more. I didn't deal in Pokémon-ex, Level-Up cards, etc. enough to retain any guidelines (if they existed).
Maybe those numbers are too generous, and it was purely a regional thing. I don't remember the exact booster pack size back then: I thought it had dropped to 9 cards for a time before returning to 10, and I believe when the game began they were 11 card booster packs. Still, running the numbers I gave:
$1.00 Parallel Holo
$1.00 Rare
$0.50 Uncommon
$0.50 Uncommon
$0.25 Common
$0.25 Common
$0.25 Common
$0.25 Common
$0.25 Common
---------------
$4.25 worth of cards
Since we are talking years ago, the boosters were usually priced below that. Now, plain Commons were harder to trade away (let alone sell), but even just looking at the value of Uncommons, the Rare, and the Parallel holo, you already hit $3.00, within a dollar of buying the full booster (after tax, back then).
This made buying boosters a lot more appealing. When you hit something really in demand (be it a rare collectable card or something useful for decks), you came out ahead, and if you "whiffed", the low end meant you still came at least close to breaking even.
This does not apply now, nor does it appear to have applied for the last several years. It did apply at my second most prolific time in the game, so I haven't forgotten it; indeed the value of the Pokémon TCG at that time is what really sold me on it. Now that was truly golden, but even when the "bottom drops out" for the "filler" cards in a set, the more useful cards of lower rarities in a set, the better the buy for a booster.
One also needs to factor in how much trading/selling one is willing to do and how many (and diverse) of decks one wants to play. During the period I described, I would usually have one or two regular decks, and one or two fun decks that could change from week to week, plus I was still collecting; thus I had a use for at least one copy of each card in the set, and usually made it my goal to have a full five copies (ignoring reprints) so that I had a full play set and a full set collected.
As you know Kayle, I sometimes get confused and lost in semantics. So I am asking you to clarify that if you would. I think you are stating that you do not believe that was StormFront's point. I am not StormFront, so I gave what made sense to me given his statements. I could be wrong. I can tell you that this was actually was a part of a point I have been trying to make both in this thread and others.
The example I gave above was in response to your statement that boosters are never cost effective over buying singles. Useful Commons and Uncommons that long time players don't have a shoebox full of (like Switch) are useful for reducing the inherent risk of buying the semi-randomized booster packs, which was another, closely related point I was trying to make. Again, maybe I am alone in that, but I still stand by it.
You use "awesome" pretty freely there; just a reminder I was born at the end of 1981, so I experienced the overuse of "awesome" from infancy until late in High School, before it fell out of favor. That is to say, I don't save it for reverential reference to God or some other lofty usage.
Using it in the relative set of this set versus other Pokémon sets... it feels weaker than Dark Explorers. Many of the anticipated cards fell short in that set, but at least there were cards that proved useful at most rarity levels (besides "placeholder" Evolving Pokémon that you have to play to access an Evolution). Dragons Exalted got a boost from containing a new Type, but it too had some strong cards across rarities... well except perhaps Commons.
So relative to other recent sets, I would not call it bad. I would not call it "pretty awesome" or even "kind of awesome". I would call it a good set that isn't as good as we were expecting based on the equivalent Japanese release.
Except this isn't 100% true. The general rule of thumb is that the higher the rarity of a card, the better it is. This is because of how cards are designed; lower Stages of Evolutions are usually of a lower rarity, and are also less complicated (and capable) than their Evolved forms. However throughout the game's history, there have been plenty of cards that were Commons or Uncommons that were good, and even more cards that were better than something of a higher rarity.
The only reason I think there is some causation involved in the correlation is because of the backlash of "bad rare" cards and the bump in sales that sometimes is generated by making something useful a higher rarity. So the number of "good" cards in the higher rarities are usually greater. Plus the willingness of many players to accept filler cards that lower the overall quality of the game.
Kayle
Active Member
...I'm going to be honest, I stopped reading here.
I am using short sentences, easily read quips, and mildly hyperbolic sentences to express that I am not invested in making a concrete point, and just expressing a point of view (that I feel is neglected).
If you remove the sentence above from context - and even to some extent in context - I have no idea how on earth it's related, and I say that because I hope it prompts you to recognize that you are getting very, very deep into my very short and relatively shallow-minded posts. You are dragging me out into making points that aren't really related to the view I wanted to express in the first place.
I feel that there are lots of cards in the set worth examining. If your standards go up that doesn't really change the potential value of the set. Sure, Dark Explorers was, very, very good, but I think that's unusual for the last several years of set release.
If you really want my honest opinion, not only do I think BCR sounds like a perfectly fine set, I actually don't think people have any right to be upset because there was never any guarantee or even a hint of idea that Ether and such would be released in this set, and it's just an expectation that we create for ourselves and usually have granted. If we hadn't seen Bicycle, Ether, Escape Rope, etc in the scans for Cold Flare, I don't think people would be nearly as upset about the set. We probably wouldn't be raving about how good it is... but we wouldn't be complaining. That says something to me about what people are really upset about, and we need to remember that we created this expectation. TPCi doesn't owe us these cards; even if we are at rights to expect them to be translated and released here, we don't actually have any guarantee that that will happen. (Have there been any purely Japanese-exclusive cards since Mysterious Pearl or whatever it was called?)
Otaku
Active Member
Um... really long post... might want to check out the "tl;dr" if you're in a hurry. ¬_¬
I don't disagree. Unfortunately I've been examining them for a bit now; since I kind of need to be able to review them soon, it is usually good to "work ahead". :lol:
The potential value of the set was diminished by the removal of some key cards. No really; the set had the potential to be better than it is. If you truly believe the set is "awesome", it could have been "super-special-awesome".
As for my standards, they are born of a lot of experience with this game and other TCGs. Am I the most experienced? No. Does experience guarantee I know what I am talking about? No. We all know I've said some truly stupid things. The question is are my standards actually "going up", whether they are or not, do I have my standards for adequate reasons? So I gave my reasons. I hope it is clear I am not understanding yours, or else we simply disagree.
Don't suppose you're a big fan of a particular Pokémon in this set? Just wondering because if someone has been, for example, waiting on a new, viable Blastoise this set seems a lot more awesome.
Releasing a "good" set after several years of "mediocre" or even "poor" sets does not make the set more than "good". If we constantly lower expectations, we'll just keep getting less and expected to like it. Wonder why some of us take things so seriously? This is a good example; I've seen this as a dangerous principle in real life so when someone throws it out there, I feel the need to confront it.
If it sounds like "we" are being too hard on TPC, part of the reason the discussion keeps happening are their "defenders". Yes many of us are still expressing discontentment, but that's because a lot of people didn't like the changes. Some will never be satisfied. I (and those who agree with me, if any) may be completely wrong... but this thread started to discuss the topic and it started clearly in favor of the set not having been handled correctly.
The Pokémon TCG is a worldwide game, with Organized Play that culminates with a World Championship tournament that really needs shared rules and a shared card pool. This gives us a reason to expect very similar releases. If those designing the game in Japan are doing their job correctly, a set released there should be balanced and changing it will unbalance it. So when card releases are played with, it means one group or the other got a flawed release.
Now Japan has cards distributed in ways we don't have, so changes happen. We still have the capacity to analyze and weigh in on those changes; for example whether it might have been better to release Boundaries Crossed as a more or less straight up compilation of Cold Flare and Freeze Bolt and introduce the less impressive cards added into the next set, which was already going to be smaller.
We get to express dissatisfaction with the company trying to sell us a product's decisions. They have the option to tell us we are wrong, or let it blow over; odds are they will make the right call. Now, knowing that a company could have delivered a superior product but didn't versus not knowing that a company could have shouldn't really affect whether something is right or wrong. It is also a hypothetical; saying "we shouldn't be upset since we wouldn't care if we didn't know" isn't the situation.
tl;dr: Kayle, you are usually quite level-headed, probably more so than me. So this is probably me misunderstanding you, but reading your statements, it sounds like you decided an opinion you shared wasn't being represented enough so you posted. Unfortunately, a lot of this sounds like "complaining about complaining", and dissatisfaction with those who are going deeper into the discussion.
If you just shared an expressed stance, there is a "Thank You" Button so you can express yourself, support what you feel is the correct and under-represented stance, and not be required to offer any supporting reasons. Some of us are in a deeper (relatively speaking; Pokémon is Pokémon) discussion. It is leading us to discuss things like potential ramifications (good and bad) of the changes, and what changes might have proven beneficial. I don't get why that bothers you so much. Now if you feel like continuing the discussion, feel free; I bring this up based on your own statements that you didn't want a deeper discussion.
I don't disagree. Unfortunately I've been examining them for a bit now; since I kind of need to be able to review them soon, it is usually good to "work ahead". :lol:
The potential value of the set was diminished by the removal of some key cards. No really; the set had the potential to be better than it is. If you truly believe the set is "awesome", it could have been "super-special-awesome".
As for my standards, they are born of a lot of experience with this game and other TCGs. Am I the most experienced? No. Does experience guarantee I know what I am talking about? No. We all know I've said some truly stupid things. The question is are my standards actually "going up", whether they are or not, do I have my standards for adequate reasons? So I gave my reasons. I hope it is clear I am not understanding yours, or else we simply disagree.
Don't suppose you're a big fan of a particular Pokémon in this set? Just wondering because if someone has been, for example, waiting on a new, viable Blastoise this set seems a lot more awesome.
Releasing a "good" set after several years of "mediocre" or even "poor" sets does not make the set more than "good". If we constantly lower expectations, we'll just keep getting less and expected to like it. Wonder why some of us take things so seriously? This is a good example; I've seen this as a dangerous principle in real life so when someone throws it out there, I feel the need to confront it.
If it sounds like "we" are being too hard on TPC, part of the reason the discussion keeps happening are their "defenders". Yes many of us are still expressing discontentment, but that's because a lot of people didn't like the changes. Some will never be satisfied. I (and those who agree with me, if any) may be completely wrong... but this thread started to discuss the topic and it started clearly in favor of the set not having been handled correctly.
The Pokémon TCG is a worldwide game, with Organized Play that culminates with a World Championship tournament that really needs shared rules and a shared card pool. This gives us a reason to expect very similar releases. If those designing the game in Japan are doing their job correctly, a set released there should be balanced and changing it will unbalance it. So when card releases are played with, it means one group or the other got a flawed release.
Now Japan has cards distributed in ways we don't have, so changes happen. We still have the capacity to analyze and weigh in on those changes; for example whether it might have been better to release Boundaries Crossed as a more or less straight up compilation of Cold Flare and Freeze Bolt and introduce the less impressive cards added into the next set, which was already going to be smaller.
We get to express dissatisfaction with the company trying to sell us a product's decisions. They have the option to tell us we are wrong, or let it blow over; odds are they will make the right call. Now, knowing that a company could have delivered a superior product but didn't versus not knowing that a company could have shouldn't really affect whether something is right or wrong. It is also a hypothetical; saying "we shouldn't be upset since we wouldn't care if we didn't know" isn't the situation.
tl;dr: Kayle, you are usually quite level-headed, probably more so than me. So this is probably me misunderstanding you, but reading your statements, it sounds like you decided an opinion you shared wasn't being represented enough so you posted. Unfortunately, a lot of this sounds like "complaining about complaining", and dissatisfaction with those who are going deeper into the discussion.
If you just shared an expressed stance, there is a "Thank You" Button so you can express yourself, support what you feel is the correct and under-represented stance, and not be required to offer any supporting reasons. Some of us are in a deeper (relatively speaking; Pokémon is Pokémon) discussion. It is leading us to discuss things like potential ramifications (good and bad) of the changes, and what changes might have proven beneficial. I don't get why that bothers you so much. Now if you feel like continuing the discussion, feel free; I bring this up based on your own statements that you didn't want a deeper discussion.
Last edited:
- Status