Lion_of_Darkness
New Member
dkates said:
You got it!
Proposing a possible first: Ban from Unlimited?
- Thread starter dkates
- Start date
- Status
You got it!
I am glad to see that people are expressing their opinions on this matter. However, I have noticed that some people, who I will not name, do not seem to be considering the viewpoints opposing their own, even when presented with arguments that are valid and well-stated. I would urge everyone to make sure you are considering both sides, so that this can remain an intelligent debate.
OK, just sat and read through the rest of the posts after my last...
Everyone's making valid points. Good reasons for banning, good reasons for keeping.
But look at it this way-
Even if a ban did go ahead, how on earth is it going to succeed? OK, so unlimited tourneys, no Slowking. But what about the league games, the games where kids are just playing for the fun of it?
On the off chance that they did know about the ban, why would they listen?
I just think you can't ban a card from unlimited and still call it unlimited. And it wouldn't be practical to try.
Everyone's making valid points. Good reasons for banning, good reasons for keeping.
But look at it this way-
Even if a ban did go ahead, how on earth is it going to succeed? OK, so unlimited tourneys, no Slowking. But what about the league games, the games where kids are just playing for the fun of it?
On the off chance that they did know about the ban, why would they listen?
I just think you can't ban a card from unlimited and still call it unlimited. And it wouldn't be practical to try.
djcati said:
I would like to point out that "___'s Pikachu"(otherwise known as "Birthday Pikachu") is banned in Unlimited, it's no real problem for it to be banned, since the League members(or at least most of 'em) will listen to, and believe the League Leader, if there's a legitimate reason for it to be banned. Of course, I would still like it if it didn't come to banning, but just erratta it, or reprint it with the proper text.
Just my opinion.
EeveeTrainer
New Member
Alright I've been mostly silent on issues recently and I think this would be a nice place to step back into teh heat of verbal competition.
There are several issues that have all been touched on about his royal pain in the neck. First and most painless as all are suggesting is to ban him. But there maybe something that you're all overlooking. As broken as slowking is, there's not really anything to stop each and every one of you from playing him. While Slowking is irritating, he's based on luck like alot of the 'broken' cards. He's on a flip and there are counters to him.
First and most clear is gust and kill the slowpoke before it has a chance...but most will say, "He's out too fast." And you're all right. Anyone playing him like he should be played has him out turn 2 or 3.
Another way is to have pokemon that take the place of Trainers. Lioone, Cleffa, Noctowl, Victreebell and Erika's Victrebell being some of the obvious choices.
Personally this is my take. Slowking is powerful yes. Broken...maybe but there are ways, many ways, of dealing with him. Fact is that in any format if you're not suited to deal with the deck that can beat yours you will lose. That's just simply the way it all is.
And that's really all I have to say.
-Saturn Knight
There are several issues that have all been touched on about his royal pain in the neck. First and most painless as all are suggesting is to ban him. But there maybe something that you're all overlooking. As broken as slowking is, there's not really anything to stop each and every one of you from playing him. While Slowking is irritating, he's based on luck like alot of the 'broken' cards. He's on a flip and there are counters to him.
First and most clear is gust and kill the slowpoke before it has a chance...but most will say, "He's out too fast." And you're all right. Anyone playing him like he should be played has him out turn 2 or 3.
Another way is to have pokemon that take the place of Trainers. Lioone, Cleffa, Noctowl, Victreebell and Erika's Victrebell being some of the obvious choices.
Personally this is my take. Slowking is powerful yes. Broken...maybe but there are ways, many ways, of dealing with him. Fact is that in any format if you're not suited to deal with the deck that can beat yours you will lose. That's just simply the way it all is.
And that's really all I have to say.
-Saturn Knight
Good argument, however the point stands that these are not viable counters if you're playing against a decent player with a somewhat well built deck.
By the way, welcome back to the world of competative debating.
This post is IMO as ussual of course.
Keep in mind, we're not just trying to get him banned, we'd rather just have him errattaed to the Japanese version.
He is "on a flip", the problem is that when 2 or 3 of them are out, how often will someone 0 heads out of 2or3 flips on a consistant basis?
The problem is that not only will they have the Slowkings out(almost every single time) by turn 2 or 3, another thing to worry about is Rare Candy, now they get to keep the Slowpokes safe in their hand(so they can't get gusted out) and then play 2 or 3 Slowpokes, along with 2 or 3 Slowkings on 'em in the same turn(other then 1st turn of the game of course).
The main problem with this strategy is that you use 'em once or twice(a couple more if you're really lucky) and then they easily get one hit KO's on 'em, and even if your Bellsprouts do survive long enough to get to Victreebell or Erika's Victreebell, and then you get heads on the power, the opponent just plays a switch or a Warp nrg, and then KO's it.
By the way, welcome back to the world of competative debating.
This post is IMO as ussual of course.
Banning slowking will probably just make other cards bether. Like a deck like metal chansey. Ive played metal chansey for a longf time and i do not really have a problem winnong over anydeck except slowking. I know the new metal rule and it removes the metal chansey deck, but still. Why shuld they ban it now and why not for ages ago?
Tego said:
Keep in mind that it took a very long time for them to ban Slowking from Modified. I would also like to ask people who post to not overlook the fact that we want Slowking banned only as a last resort, if erratta(to the Japanese version) is out of the question.
Thanks for reading.
LightUmbreon
New Member
slowking is STILL a fat dumb, cheap load. He should have some constraint tho. Card msitakes like those make the neviornment less fun.
BJJ763 said:
Maybe no one would play him, but at least he wouldn't ruin the format, also, Slowking is different from the Japanese version.
Something else to take into consideration is that Slowking was changed to where the opponent had to pay the cost of the trainers before the flips(example: having to discard 2 cards from your hand for Computer Search), and then it was immediately banned from Modified(seems like perhaps it was an attempt to further ruin the format that wasn't raking in the most money).
It was banned from MF because it was used in almost every deck at Worlds. The Japanese observers noted this and asked for the ban.
And no Slowking was not changed so that the player had to pay for the cost of playing the card. You are thinking of a Slowking and No Removal Gym and someone wanting to play ER or SER. CPU Search has an effect not a cost of Discarding 2 cards to search for 1. When you play ER or SER with No Removal Gym in play, you must pay it's cost. It was ruled when a Slowking is in play with a No Removal Gym, you must pay the cost to play the card first, then Slowking gets to see if you can play it (because the Slowking player does not have to flip when their opponent wants to play a Trainer).
And no Slowking was not changed so that the player had to pay for the cost of playing the card. You are thinking of a Slowking and No Removal Gym and someone wanting to play ER or SER. CPU Search has an effect not a cost of Discarding 2 cards to search for 1. When you play ER or SER with No Removal Gym in play, you must pay it's cost. It was ruled when a Slowking is in play with a No Removal Gym, you must pay the cost to play the card first, then Slowking gets to see if you can play it (because the Slowking player does not have to flip when their opponent wants to play a Trainer).
No sorry dude, unlimited means you can play everything. The new company should not reprint it, but could choose to Errata it if they wish to. Alot less Muk's would be in standard if they did and alot more powerful cards could be used. I saw dont do anything about it, but I would prefer if the card was erratad.
Either give it the errata or ban it. It's just too powerful for any format. In casual play, you should be allowed to play whatever you want. In Unlimited play, Slowking should be banned. There is a big difference between those 2 formats. One is for tournaments, one is for fun. That's just my opinion. LoD, add my name to your list.
Unlimited does mean you can play everything, as long as you consider NOT being able to play "__'s Pikachu" or "Ancient Mew" as being able to play everythingIce'Cold said:
. I do however, agree with the rest of your post(aside from the reprinting thing, I do think it would be better to just reprint it, that way you avoid a lot of confusion). Magnechu hit the nail right on the head.
Thanks for the posts, lets keep 'em comin', turning into a pretty good debate.
Oh, and BJJ, it looks as though I may have made a mistake(even though I don't think I did
).
jesschow12
New Member
think slowking should get reprinted because since the new MF format has came out, the cards can be use are far more powerful than the old ones then why does everyone here still thinking slowking is too poewrful or broken?
SolarPichu
Member
Instead of Banning Slowking, why not make a card specifically to counter it? I can see it now...
Shellder (40 HP)
(W) Release
Discard all Slowking and Slowbro. Leave the Slowpoke there to punish your opponent.
Shellder (40 HP)
(W) Release
Discard all Slowking and Slowbro. Leave the Slowpoke there to punish your opponent.
- Status