TCG rules change with release of X/Y...?

[bullados]

Back in the Base Set days, Gust of Wind represented one-sixth of a full game. It virtually always guaranteed a prize whenever it was played.

Pokemon Catcher is the same way. It's actually worse. It now represents one-third of a full game. It virtually always guarantees two prizes whenever it is played.

My problem isn't with the end-result. I do think that the Bench needs some kind of limiter. We need to be able to attack the bench. But Catcher is costless AND searchable. Ever since Gust of Wind was rotated, we have never had that combination in a card. Double Gust gave the opponent the same effect. Warp Point, Circulator, and Escape Rope give the opponent choice. Pow! Hand Extension had a Prize Restriction. Luxray took up a bench spot, and could only be used twice without additional deck resources. Blower could only be used twice, and required two cards to work. Probably the worst offender, other than Catcher, was Reversal, which relied on luck rather than skill. Almost every other Pokemon-based form of bench manipulation involved either an attack, had the Pokemon with the Ability to be Active, required a coin flip, was on an Evolution, or some combination of the above 4. There were even a pair of Lumineons that had some fun restrictions and I think would be pretty cool to use today.

Pokemon Catcher needs to have a cost. And there are a TON of different ideas as to what that cost could be without being completely luck based.
1) Prize Restriction, like Pow!
2) Prize Denial. i.e. if you play Catcher, you take no Prizes this turn.
3) Target limitation. i.e. 100HP or less cannot be targeted.
4) Discard. Either from hand, or from play.
5) Self-KO. i.e. if you play Catcher, you must KO one of your own Pokemon.
6) Like the SF Lumineon, look at your opponent's hand, choose a Basic that's there, and place it Active.

There are probably plenty of Trainer-Catcher restrictions that I'm just not thinking about

By the way, I do agree that the Pokemon right now are supremely overpowered. Both damage-to-energy ratios, and damage-to-HP ratios. However, even if those were balanced, Pokemon Catcher was still a problem. It simply offers too much control at too little of a cost. It was a problem even back in Base Set, when I cannot remember one single attack that could one-hit any single Pokemon within the first 3 turns of a game without the benefit of Weakness. It's a bigger problem now that OHKOs are everywhere and happen so quickly.

Pokemon Catcher is not THE problem with the format. But it is ONE OF the problems with the format.

 

[TheDancingPeanut]

No one is going to play the new catcher, so the luck factor is irrelevant.
Alternatively titled, "People are going to play the new catcher with the same frequency with which they played Pokémon reversal. Thus, it will see low usage overall compared to other trainers."

I think the problem here is that the game has expanded so much during B&W that many of the people commenting here can't imagine a format where not everyone plays four catchers. To those people, I'd remind you that this period was an aberration in the game's long history. Further, the introduction of the card contradicted the introduction of super-powerful big basics, which accounts for the extinction of setup decks.

Previously, it was not unheard of to see decks with 2 or 3 Stage 2 lines. Can you imagine that?

 

[yoshi1001]

Let me ask you a true question: in your experience, before Pokemon Catcher was released, were players asking year after year for Gust of Wind to be reprinted? My impression is no, it was too powerful. That's why I can't get behind any argument that suggests that it should have remained as-is for the next two years.

Just to add to this, even if we hadn't gotten Catcher and had the bench sitters we had now, I think most people would be asking for something that was less "convenient" than Catcher.

 

[Otaku]

I apologize, as we are getting to that dreaded "long post is answered by long post is answered by long post" escalation.

I like your statement that Pokemon Reversal will skew one way or the other, in terms of players adopting it. I don't claim the format will diversify in that suddenly 10 decks will be viable for Tier 1...only that more complicated deck set up strategies will emerge. Sophisticated plays with Escape Rope will be devised. People will pay more attention to snipe attacks. Walls will be used again. Red Signal will be more widely utilized, as well as Garbodor to block it. All because people don't have 4 chances in a deck to automatically drag up a benched Pokemon.

Now... how do you support this?

I don't doubt that players will cope, but you start on the premise that decks shouldn't have Pokémon Catcher. Pretty sure that doesn't actually prove a point. Historically, everything you mentioned has counterparts and honestly... I can't say that they were "better" than just having a universal option that was simple and straight forward. I seem to recall being annoyed when a deck would have to run [insert Pokémon] because it was the best bench disruption option, while everything else had to make do with complicated Warp Point tricks or Pokémon Reversal.

I absolutely agree that the last two years were focused on making a metagame that was focused on heavy-hitting EX's, and Pokemon Catcher enabled that.

That isn't what I said:

It isn't complicated; fast attacking, hard hitting Pokémon in play before either player can Evolve (let alone the player that went second) makes it so that only the most overpowered Pokémon see play (Evolution or Basic).

Pokémon-EX (as a mechanic) isn't the problem. Are many of the problem cards Pokémon-EX? Absolutely! Is every card I believe is overpowered to the point of being unbalancing a Pokémon-EX? No. I keep pointing out some Evolved Pokémon see play... they are just as overpowered compared to the rest, just like the Basic Pokémon that see play (EX or otherwise). More to the point, Pokémon Catcher helped these decks, but calling it an "enabler" is misleading. For example, we've already been postulating that Deluge decks may be quite happy to see Pokémon Catcher nerfed. Why? It benefited from it, but not to the same degree as many other decks.

Again, when we have two cards seemingly causing a problem and we remove the one and the remaining card still causes a problem, it doesn't follow that the card we removed was the source of the problem. In this case we've got a whole class of cards (overpowered Pokémon) causing a problem (if you don't enjoy the current pace and emphasis on "power cards") and they can make the best use of Pokémon Catcher relative to the rest of the format... but when we take Pokémon Catcher away, most (if not all) of these same cards are still going to cause a problem.

With these rules changes, we will start to move towards a new format. Without knowing what cards are coming (mega evolution?) we just don't know if it will be better or worse yet, but personally I have faith that the game designers do know and they are making good choices.

As you brought it up, let me ask you why do you have such faith? With the current track record established over the last five years, if anything I have faith that the next set will be business as usual; turning Pokémon into what Yu-Gi-Oh used to be (when I still played Yu-Gi-Oh). Sets will be mostly filler; yes by definition the best cards are going to have the most influence on the format, but in this case the best cards pretty much are the competitive format. As a long time player, there are also all the issues that should have been addressed years ago, and sometimes were but were then undone, that make things even more baffling and uncertain.

Let me ask you a true question: in your experience, before Pokemon Catcher was released, were players asking year after year for Gust of Wind to be reprinted? My impression is no, it was too powerful. That's why I can't get behind any argument that suggests that it should have remained as-is for the next two years.

Before I answer, let me point out that your question is terrible.

1) Before Pokémon Catcher was printed, most of the cards that are the focus of the current competitive scene weren't even out.

2) Fun fact... just because the majority wants something doesn't make it right.

3) Study takes time.

So no, players weren't asking for Gust of Wind to come back, but at this point I am starting to wonder they should have. Between testing of the older cards and the last few formats, I've come to realize that Gust of Wind was never the real problem.

So, the correct question should be "Did Pokémon Catcher improve or hurt the format it was released into?" followed by "Did Pokémon Catcher improve or hurt the previous format?", "Does Pokémon Catcher improve or hurt the current format?" and at last then contemplate "Is Pokémon Catcher likely to improve, hurt, or not matter to the pending cardpool?"

 

[losjackal]

I'll try to do my part and start winding down my long posts! The support for my initial statements about Red Signal, etc. is that it is a very powerful mechanic, and some (most?) people will strive to execute upon it one way or another. Luxchomp was special because of it. Pokémon Catcher gave every deck that power.

You get very philosophical about the state of the game in your last paragraph, I like that, because these are the questions that the game designers ask themselves every day. They don't go to work hoping to do a bad job! That's why I have faith that they are making the best decisions they can. Think about it...without fail, they are releasing 100+ new cards every 3 months. They think about potential card interactions orders of magnitude more than you or I do. Sometimes, the community may have the opportunity to prove them wrong. I believe that's what happened with Sabledonk and early rotation. But until we can prove that nerfing Catcher is a bad thing, I choose to believe the decision was made for the right reasons.

 

[khit]

You get very philosophical about the state of the game in your last paragraph, I like that, because these are the questions that the game designers ask themselves every day. They don't go to work hoping to do a bad job! That's why I have faith that they are making the best decisions they can. Think about it...without fail, they are releasing 100+ new cards every 3 months. They think about potential card interactions orders of magnitude more than you or I do.

This is a great point. Maybe they can't make more than 5 good cards in three months and completely test them against every other card in format, Honestly if that's the reason for this filler I would much rather wait longer between sets and actually get a set of playable cards. Buying packs and pulling garbage 95% of the time isn't helping card prices or helping entice competitive players either, making the playable ex's in format sometimes go as high as 70$, good luck pulling 4, and have fun chasing another one or two good cards in three months or prepare to shell out up to 200$
I am also very curious as to where your confidence in the game makers comes from when it seams every decision they make is completely ignorant that a competitive card game even exists.

 

[ShadowCard]

I logged in just to thank Otaku's post discussing Pokemon Reversal's presence at times when other cards with similar effects were also in the game. But I'll add on...

I agree with losjackal that changing Pokemon Catcher will make game plays more sophisticated. In the DP-era, Warp Point became a card one could use aggressively. But this also gives bench-sitters, such as Musharna and Empoleon, a better chance to evolve up and develop plays. For comparison, Claydol and Uxie did well in their times even with Luxray-GL lvX, and Magcargo did well even with Pow! Hand Extension. It also makes it harder to force pokemon that need to be active for their abilities to work, like Stoutland and Flygon, back to the bench.

 

[losjackal]

Honestly if that's the reason for this filler I would much rather wait longer between sets and actually get a set of playable cards....I am also very curious as to where your confidence in the game makers comes from when it seams every decision they make is completely ignorant that a competitive card game even exists.

The last filler set we got was Call of Legends. It happens. No sense raging against it.

Why? Because it's the Pokémon Trading Card Game. That's the name. Not Pokémon Competitive Trading Card Game. The Cards came first, they can be Traded, and you can play a Game with them. The competitive organized play came later. It's not unreasonable to expect that competitive play is a secondary concern.

 

[Otaku]

Note that sometimes post are long because they have to be. Also, remember that it isn't just numbers of characters but how many things you give me to respond too. For example, I am now responding to a relatively small post, but between a possible miscommunication and what I believe is an erroneous starting point... yeah, still not "short".

Sorry, I really am trying. >.>

The last filler set we got was Call of Legends. It happens. No sense raging against it.

Not what we are talking about. Reprint sets can be good are bad. We are talking about cards that have minimal effort... and the effort that does go into them is mostly to make sure they won't impact the game significantly. They are "filler"... just there to "fill out" the set.

Why? Because it's the Pokémon Trading Card Game. That's the name. Not Pokémon Competitive Trading Card Game. The Cards came first, they can be Traded, and you can play a Game with them. The competitive organized play came later. It's not unreasonable to expect that competitive play is a secondary concern.

We know that the bulk of sales (unless this has changed since we heard different) come from kids or parents buying packs for the kids in place of "toys". These are the customers that are hard not to satisfy. Next slice of the pie might be collectors or it might be players... but a good business will want to maximize sales to both.

If they didn't want a game that was remotely competitive, then the competitive support we have wouldn't exist. If something is worth doing, it is worth doing right. If it isn't going to involve buying cards in a manner that promotes exchanging them amongst the fans, it isn't a TCG. If it has no game at all, it isn't a TCG. If they aren't cards... it isn't a TCG.

 

[vaporeon]

If they didn't want a game that was remotely competitive, then the competitive support we have wouldn't exist. If something is worth doing, it is worth doing right. If it isn't going to involve buying cards in a manner that promotes exchanging them amongst the fans, it isn't a TCG. If it has no game at all, it isn't a TCG. If they aren't cards... it isn't a TCG.

You bring up a good point. I can't remember the last time I traded for a card that wasn't a ultra rare or even a trade for that matter. I just buy the cards needed for my deck. The point of a TCG is to trade cards but there is nothing worth trading for and this is a huge deal for the health of the game.

 

[Tim17]

Two things. First ever since the BW has started the cards have noticeable been referencing the video games a lot more, making the transition from one to the other easier. Cards like Warp Point and Night Maintenance have been replaced by actual items in the games, and supporters have since been strictly a character like "Cheren" instead of "Professor Oak's New Theory." This strengthens the relation to the games, and simply naming it 'Professor' eliminates that connection.

Second the first release of XY material and including stuff like Professor Sycamore is more of a Marketing reason than playability. Sure they could've waited to release it until later, but the including the professor in the first set is sort of a tradition.

I understand the marketing reason, but still the fact is - they could have waited a set or two to produce the card [we all expect to see it] - heck, they could have made it part of the 3 starters box sets.....

As for the name bit - all the games have a professor, just like they've fishermen, etc. I even stated the picture could be changed to show the current professor.....it would have been a different thing if the effect had been different [like others have suggested - I liked the shuffle in and draw 6 or 7 cards idea].

As for the continued debate on catcher and what could have been done to it - why not the cost of two cards off the top of your deck as a cost? The point being here is you're taking the chance of losing useful cards at the whim of fate and luck, compared to say discarding two from hand.....

 

[CardKaptor]

*snip*

Pokemon Catcher needs to have a cost. And there are a TON of different ideas as to what that cost could be without being completely luck based.

*snip*
4) Discard. Either from hand, or from play.

Thanks for the post. I agree with most of what you said, and most of the costs you posted I haven't thought of. I just wanted to say again that I don't think discarding from hand would be a good enough cost (well, I suppose a large enough discard would be, but I don't think 2 is enough). Many decks want to discard cards throughout (Darkrai with Dark Patch as an example), and even those that don't will want to discard to thin out their deck for a late game N or whatever. The cost needs to be more substantial, in my opinion. I like the "discard from play" idea.

 

[losjackal]

You bring up a good point. I can't remember the last time I traded for a card that wasn't a ultra rare or even a trade for that matter. I just buy the cards needed for my deck. The point of a TCG is to trade cards but there is nothing worth trading for and this is a huge deal for the health of the game.

These recent rules changes actually make more cards more playable, and thus valuable! Jirachi EX is safer, Cradily could be a viable strategy, lots of Stage 2's have a chance. Do you have a playset of Magnezone yet, in case that becomes part of a meta deck?

Many competitive players hardly trade anymore because it is indeed easier to just buy the cards you NEED on the secondary market. I need more Genesect EX. My league is meeting today. I have plenty of valuable cards in my binder, to execute a trade I need to be able to find someone who has an available Genesect EX, and wants something I have. I don't expect that to happen, which is why I'll probably be buying 1 or 2 singles online this week. It's not worth the effort to negotiate trades for lesser things, as we also have the means to sell our extra valuable cards.

On the other hand, people who primarily COLLECT I'm sure are still active traders. In fact I think they prefer to trade instead of buy. They collect to own a particular collection of things, or they trade to acquire certain cards at bargain values now only to trade them away at higher values later.


Anyway, that's just pointing out there are still types of people who trade. The second point is that the value in a new set isn't immediately apparent. I see your point and agree filler cards exist....let's just say out of 100 cards, maybe only 20 will ever see play. Maybe that's even being generous, it could be 10-15. But is that what you have a problem with? If so, what should that number be? (Let's not stray too far off topic here....I just don't understand if the complaints above are just about the upcoming Legendary Treasures set, or the sets of the past 5 years.)

 

[Otaku]

These recent rules changes actually make more cards more playable, and thus valuable! Jirachi EX is safer, Cradily could be a viable strategy, lots of Stage 2's have a chance. Do you have a playset of Magnezone yet, in case that becomes part of a meta deck?

To be fair we don't know what (if anything) will become "more playable" just like we don't know that the change will have little effect. Unlike others I do not automatically assume a coin flip makes Pokémon Catcher so bad that no one will play it... it is possible that things will only be a little tougher for the top decks, and all that will change is the close matches will be decided by the coin. It is possible (with my current understanding) that the hierarchy of "best decks" will shuffle but won't significantly change members.

 

[vaporeon]

I dont mind reprint sets. I look forward to every Pokemon set that's released for the chance that my favorite Pokemon will be printed. Im still waiting for a Pidgeot card. I really dont care about overpowered cards. My deck right now is Victini EX, Articuno EX, Zapdos EX and Moltres EX. I would rather they make smaller sets with like 70 to 80 cards and try to make them good and release new sets like 2 or 3 times a year to make sure the cards are properly tested. I'm glad for the catcher change because more things can see play. I look forward to trying out Jirachi EX myself.

As for the trading thing. I guess I mean that so much of the set is bad that no one wants to trade for them. I guess all I want really is better balance of the cards.

 

[Bilbo Baggins]

Im still waiting for a Pidgeot card. I really dont care about overpowered cards.

Lucky yours has a shot at printing. Still waiting on the Kadabra card.....

 

[vaporeon]

Is the lawsuit thing still going on?

 

[Frost]

Nintendo won the lawsuit years ago, but Geller could always sue again and just being sued in the first place costs money and causes bad press that Nintendo probably doesn't want to deal with.

 

[vaporeon]

Nintendo should just suck it up and print the card or just redesign the Pokemon. It not like Pokemon does not have characters based on real people. Besides, I'm sure Nintendo has more lawyers then Geller

 

[Swordfish1989]

Even though we think the Catcher nerf makes a lot more cards playable, we have to keep in mind that there are some pretty good decks out there that are doing fine in this format while barely using Catcher as it is (think Blastoise/Black Kyurem, tool drop trubbish). I bet those decks will dominate even more since now their opponents can't catcher up Squirtles/Blastoises and Sigilyphs. Emboar/Rayquaza decks also won't have to worry about Emboars being Catchered to active to either be stalled out or KO'ed.

I really don't think we'll get as much variety as everyone is imagining.