Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Slaking DRX, is it really as bad as it seems?

F

Fox_Master51

New Member
Even as the eternal optimistic Pokemon Connoisseur that I claim to be, even I have to agree that the new Slaking's Ability is just plain stupid. If the opponent's active is a Basic then Slaking cannot attack. :confused: They really give this to us now of all times? In a metagame brimming with Basic Pokemon? So Slaking must turn to a certain pile of garbage for help. It's attack on the other hand is pretty cool. Crushing Blow does 100 damage with the added effect of discarding an Energy attached to the Defending Pokemon. All for a nominal fee of 4 :colorless: Energy. Despite my above ranting I think It could make a fun rogue deck when paired with Garbodor. The sucky thing is that unless you run like 4 Tool Scrapper, you can't run other Ability Pokemon (Tool Scrapper being for trashing the Tool on Garbodor, to use other Abilities). But that doesn't short you out too much. There are still things like Terrakion and such to aid in your efforts.

Anyway, what do you guys think about a Slaking / Garbodor rogue deck?
 
Fox_Master51 said:
Even as the eternal optimistic Pokemon Connoisseur that I claim to be, even I have to agree that the new Slaking's Ability is just plain stupid. If the opponent's active is a Basic then Slaking cannot attack. :confused: They really give this to us now of all times? In a metagame brimming with Basic Pokemon? So Slaking must turn to a certain pile of garbage for help. It's attack on the other hand is pretty cool. Crushing Blow does 100 damage with the added effect of discarding an Energy attached to the Defending Pokemon. All for a nominal fee of 4 :colorless: Energy. Despite my above ranting I think It could make a fun rogue deck when paired with Garbodor. The sucky thing is that unless you run like 4 Tool Scrapper, you can't run other Ability Pokemon (Tool Scrapper being for trashing the Tool on Garbodor, to use other Abilities). But that doesn't short you out too much. There are still things like Terrakion and such to aid in your efforts.

Anyway, what do you guys think about a Slaking / Garbodor rogue deck?
Click to expand...

Hmmm 100 damge for 4 energy on a stage two that cant hit most of the metagame, when Empoleon can do 120 for one energy? I dont think you will have much success with it but good luck.
 
I am doubtful that this will ever be remotely good deck, but some ideas:
-I think running it w/ Bouffalant DRX is better than running it w/ Garbodor. Takes out EXs, and takes up way less space.
-Needs something like Tornadus or Tornadus EX as a fighting counter.
-It could use Aspertia City Gym when it gets released.
-DCE abuse, a lot of it.
-Needs Darkrai EX for free retreat or many, many Switch.
-Needs a form of energy accel/movement of some sort. Eels, Energy Switch, Klinklang/Hydreigon, Terrakion EX, Emboar, etc.
 
The Truth (hehehe ^^) is that it will not get anywhere in the Top Tiers with the cards we have and the cards that will come until November.
However, just to stop thinking about it by saying it is a bad card doesn't help either, so let's rethink about it.
The additional effect on the attack is really nice. The HP is also good, with Aspertia gym and Giant Cloak it is a MONSTER to take down.
It would have 190 HP and only give up one prize while discarding your opponents.
Additionally, Fighting isn't as important anymore as it was, because it doesn't counter all the top decks anymore.
However, the attack cost and the ability which makes it only usable with Garbador or a second attacker is pretty bad.
By the way, to compare it to Empoleon with the "Empoleon is doing 120 for one Energy" arguement is just not right, cause normally it only does 120 against unprepared players and Gartaria, everybody else knows how to play without using all of his Bench space.
However, to make Slaking work we need Aspertia, so we can also abuse the ether engine. This makes it at least more possible to build a Slaking T3 without needing 2 DCE's.
To fit anything together without leaving out something important is pretty hard, but if someone would be able to do it it could be a somewhat decent Surprise deck, but to do this is a pretty hard task...

Another possibility could be to build a tank deck without Garbador and with things like Bouffalant and Blissey DEX...
I will try to build a list for both ideas and post it here later.

At least we could try to make this card somewhat working instead off giving up wihtout even trying, it doesn't hurt anybody of us investing a little bit of time in a card with such an awesome Pokémon =P
:thumb:
 
I never said it would be Top Tier. I just said it would be a fun rogue deck. Sorry I didn't specify on that.

---------- Post added 08/02/2012 at 09:53 AM ----------
JuStuPro said:
Another possibility could be to build a tank deck without Garbador and with things like Bouffalant and Blissey DEX...
I will try to build a list for both ideas and post it here later.

At least we could try to make this card somewhat working instead off giving up wihtout even trying, it doesn't hurt anybody of us investing a little bit of time in a card with such an awesome Pokémon =P
:thumb:
Click to expand...

Please do :smile: I'd like to see that. Slaking isn't all bad so It will come as a surprise to some.
 
Fox_Master51 said:
I never said it would be Top Tier. I just said it would be a fun rogue deck. Sorry I didn't specify on that.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between a fun deck and a rogue deck. Rogue decks can be fun, but most fun decks are absolutely not rogue.

Slaking could be a lot of fun, sure. But it's the farthest thing from rogue imaginable.

Edit: Let me clarify what I mean by this!

A rogue deck - the standardly accepted definition in upper-tier circles - is one that counters the metagame. It's a deck that takes a combination of cards and turns them against the common decks, beating things by attacking from an angle no one is used to.

I'm old-fashioned, but some of the best examples of rogues I can think of are Sablelock and Flygon Lock. (Locking is not the only way to do this, but it was pretty successful in my time.) Sableye won games by destroying your hand turn 1 - no one expected it when it first appeared, and it completely wrecked the tournament, which happened to be US Nationals. Flygon won games by trapping something useless active in a format where everyone had stopped running Switch, and using a poke-body to mill the opponent into oblivion. Again, it completely wrecked the tournament... which was Worlds. (Lost in finals iirc.)

Rogue decks' huge success, when executed correctly, earns them a lot of idolization and people are always thinking that making a "rogue" deck is the way to win games. But they're poorly understood. Flygon RR was a great card already, and Flygon Lv. X was well-known for its utility at destroying other Lv. X cards. Sableye was already one of the best starters in the game, and everyone ran Judge already, too. Rogues aren't "bad cards made good" - they're good cards, cards that we know are already good, used in an unexpected way.

If you want to make fun decks, that's fine - you probably shouldn't be asking for help, though, because we're going to be looking for the competitive angle, and lots of fun decks aren't very competitive. Even though they might be loads and loads of fun.
 
Last edited:
Huh. I keep thinking 'rogue' means that it's cards that no one uses or decks that aren't Top Tier or something like that. There should really be a Pokemon Dictionary on this site.
 
I've had the same thought your having. Maybe with some sort of crushing hammer and enhanced hammer enhancement. Add darks and sayble to re use. The disruption between that an the attack might be nice. If its all dark already add new hydregion and move energy so you can max potion. Just some thoughts.
 
Kayle: To be fair, like many TCG terms both contemporary and historical usage for a "Rogue Deck" do not require the deck win. Perhaps this was the original intent, or perhaps it Evolve from the success notable "rogue" decks have had; people ignore all the "failed rogue decks" or don't realize that some people were going rogue just because they hate playing established archetypes, not because they were trying to "metagame" a win.
 
Otaku said:
Kayle: To be fair, like many TCG terms both contemporary and historical usage for a "Rogue Deck" do not require the deck win. Perhaps this was the original intent, or perhaps it Evolve from the success notable "rogue" decks have had; people ignore all the "failed rogue decks" or don't realize that some people were going rogue just because they hate playing established archetypes, not because they were trying to "metagame" a win.
Click to expand...

There we go thats what I wanted to say. :biggrin:
 
A Slaking deck, by Kayle's definition, just needs to succeed to be "rogue"; literally success or failure dictates whether it is a "rogue" deck or a failed deck. Not trying to pick on Kayle or anything, but sadly we Pokemon players are a bit sloppy with our jargon. This reminds me why players such as myself get really picky about preserving terminology; while it is true that people will adapt their language over time, it needs to be done with guidance. Notice how some terms lose their usefulness because the original definition is either no longer the primary definition, or in effect at all.

Deck "Tiers" came to this game from Magic players... and Tier referred to how popular a deck was, not how well it did. Generally speaking, the better a deck performed the more widely it was played, so it is easy to see how many people merely assumed it referred to how "good" a deck was. By now, in Pokemon the definition has changed; Tiers do indeed refer to how well a deck is performing, even if it is not heavily played. Personally, while I care what deck is strongest, that is highly subjective, so knowing what deck is most played is probably more useful, since that is quantifiable (but still affects the metagame).

TecH, when the term was coined, was very explicit about its use; it only applied to Trainers and was intended for single cards. I believe they then relaxed it a bit to allow for non-attacking Pokemon, and up to two copies of said card. The term further relaxed to include attacking Pokemon and Energy (though the latter was mostly because it took that long for an Energy card to be worth "TecHing" into a deck). Also the crazy spelling was dropped (it wasn't vital).

Now I have to fight to prevent people from mistaking "splashing" with "teching", or even simply running; putting three copies of a Trainer does not count as "tech"; you're just running that Trainer! It certainly doesn't apply to running a significantly fleshed out Pokemon line; that is called splashing. Three of a Basic Pokemon is splashing if the Pokemon isn't fully supported by the deck, or simply running it if the Pokemon is. Two slots for a 1-0-1 Stage 2 line in a deck that runs Rare Candy can now be considered Tech (especially if it isn't meant for attacking), but even a 2-1-2 line is probably too significant.

"Going rogue" as a term predates TCGs; simplified it means breaking the rules. In a TCG, it would be the "rules" of how to win. Surprise is a huge advantage for most TCGs, and Pokemon is no exception; the best players know themselves, know their decks, and know the metagame. A "rogue" deck is thus an unknown; obviously the individual cards are not a secret, but even if it is just how the deck runs the championship player now has to wing it, to "guess" how best to play.

Under times of stress, people will follow routine, instinct. That is why high risk jobs drill proper procedure until it is second nature; the cop/firefighter/soldier/EMT won't have time to think during a crisis situation. No one's life may be on the line, but most players value victory high enough that preparation for a tournament includes drilling so that the best moves are second nature. Rogue decks confuse all this; completely alien decks by being unknown, new takes on older decks by "working the wrong way". It won't let you win just by being rogue, but eventually it became apparent that a top player with a rogue deck has an incredible edge.

Eventually I might get around to commenting directly on Slaking. I am trying to make Garbodor/Slaking work. Right now, I think I just need Ether to do it.
 
The only other thing I could think of is Mew Ex, which ironically has less HP and gives up two prizes, but at least it doesn't have that pesky ability! :wink:
 
even if evolutions are slowly returning, you still have Darkrai-EX, Mewtwo-EX, Tornadus-EX, Terrakion, Terrakion-EX, Rayquaza-EX, Groudon-EX, Rayquaza, and soon Landorus-EX and Keldeo-EX. Now, if you go to some high ranking tournament (states at the least), how many do you think you will see? I darn lot, I'd say. Slaking is useful in its own way, but when it is in a format with so many powerful basics, can it really keep up? Lets say you run it with Garbodor. Thats 2-1-2 or so slaking and 2-2 Garbodor for modest lines of both. Thats 9 cards of your deck. Add in the rare candies, tool cards, and hammers, and there's not too much room left for a ton of other useful stuff. Even then, is it worth it? A stage 2 that removes energies and does 80 for 2 DCEs, but is harmless to the entire non-dragon meta? It could be a fun league or BRs deck, but I don't think he's going anywhere, especially with the OHKO from Terrakion and no Eviolite.
 
I feel pretty misunderstood and confused by Otaku's posts here, regarding the definition of rogue and whatnot. x_x

What my point comes down to is that Slaking is a bad card. There is no way to get around it. There is no reason to use it, other than the fact that LOL, IT'S SLAKING, HAHAHA. (Which is a pretty good reason in some circles ^ ^.) Any deck you build with Slaking that has a shred of success, could likely be improved by swapping Slaking out for another Pokemon line, with greater speed and an ability that lets it actually attack the majority of the format. I'm not hating on the card (well, maybe I am, but not blindly) - it feels extremely obvious that the card itself is simply inferior to pretty much every other option out there. There is NO reason to play it, except that you don't want to play anything else, and/or you just want to play Slaking because hey, it's Slaking.

Bad as it seems, yes. Unusable no, but exactly as bad as it seems.
 
Even when using Garbordor, the attack is bulky and doesn't do enough damage to basic exs. it is a pretty bad card lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top