The Grinder: Consistency vs. Techs

Discussion in 'Cards: Strategy and Rulings Discussion' started by Professor Elm, Jul 24, 2008.

8 league13 468 60
  1. Professor Elm

    Professor Elm Active Member

    After recently discovering I will be able to compete in the grinder because of my "cousin's hookups", I have been testing pretty frequently. Meeting for leagues and casual play has become more a "2 times a week thing" over here, and even though Jose and I will be the only ones reppin SAtown, we all have been testing out the metagame.

    Currently, I am testing Plox. It is by far the most infamous and reliable deck of the format. It is the one deck that I KNOW I can do well with and for this reason it may very well be my deck choice for grinder.

    BUT, this leads to the argument that I am about to establish. Although, GG/Plox is arguably one of the most consistent decks in the format, EVERY GG/Plox player know that T2 Gardevoir with DRE and Claydol is still very unlikely and requires a good amount of luck. It is extremely ideal, and more often than not, unrealistic. SO, I have been questioning which is more important for such a deck type that is already moderately consistent. Those extra "consistency enhancer cards" or "tech cards".

    Judging by Gino's National winning deck, MOST would prefer to tech out their deck rather than add consistency. BUT, I am challenging that mechanic for the grinder.
    The Grinder will be a grueling 8-9 round multi-hundred player tournament with 30 minute rounds. Thus, no top cut, which also gives GG decks an even greater boost due to its ability to manipulate time.

    Considering the circumstances of the tournament, the question I am finding myself dealing with is "Consistency vs. Techs".

    I will start off by saying that I am a consistency freak, if you will. All my decks I test HAVE TO setup by T3 or 4 consistently or I will abandon a decktype all together. Whether this means upping my supporter count or playing 3-3 Claydol, I refuse to play decks that are sometimes risky to setup. At the same time, I do also like to make certain matchups better by adding in certain cards.

    Currently, my Plox list plays a 3-4 Claydol line with 4 Call Energy, 4 Roseannes, and a Pachirisu AND 4 Bebes and a Celios. Essentially this makes 9 cards (4 Call, 4 Roseannes, 1 Pachi) that search out basics and 9 card (4 Claydol, 4 Bebes, 1 Celios) that search out Claydol/other evolutions. I still manage a tech Dusknoir line, but that is virtually one of my only tech cards. People will always argue with me over my deck choices, but I feel that breaking away from "tech" cards is essential for a successful tournament deck. As much as I love being able to have extra cards to deal with my matchups, I just don't see it as being as vital as having a consistent T2 Claydol and T3 Psy Lock.

    Techs can win or lose you a matchup, but consistency forms the essence of a deck and its performance. Overkill to some people is "increased luck" to other people.

    So, this poses the argument. Which is more vital for a tournament deck? Are tech cards really going to alter the outcome of a match SO MUCH THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO GIVE UP SLIGHT CONSISTENCY? For me, no. BUT, I know other people who will pose a good argument on their view point. Gino's GG build had many techs, which I am sure he will tell you is the reason he did so well.

    I want to hear from the rest of the Pokemon communtiy, and please not that although I focused my argument on Plox this applies to all decktypes, and I don't want this to turn into "GG/Plox needs to be banned" discussion. Just post what you think about the given argument. I wanna hear what people gotta say.
     
  2. Papi/Manny

    Papi/Manny New Member

    Techs is definatley not the way to go, unless your list can pull them off without distracting from your list too much. Consistancy, espically in a tournament where you have to go undefeated in a 7-9 round tourament, is the way to go.
     
  3. Professor Elm

    Professor Elm Active Member

    I completely agree with this, BUT many Plox/GG builds are teching more and more cards into their decks to deal with various matchups, and the decktype still manages to do well. I understand, GG/Plox is one of the more consistent decks out there, but in my experience I can never pull off as many techs as some people play.
     
  4. ChaosKnuckles

    ChaosKnuckles New Member

    Though I have not played Plox/GG at all this season. From this season of playing I have tried some different techs like 3/1 starter lines, random basic techs, and the classic 1-0-1 line. There are some techs that are close to being needed in some decks(can't think of an example right now though) that really help some matches. There are others that aren't really needed at all and hurt consistency in the long run(0-0-1 techs in TogeChomp). I like the 4 Call 4 Roseanna's basic searching engine and use it in alot of decks to much succes. But is 3 Claydol needed? Half the time they'll be shut down by your opponent's Plox's. I think Consistency over Techs unless the Tech is must. Thats my 2 cents, I hope I helped in your decision.
     
  5. Sandslash7

    Sandslash7 <a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=

    He's actually playing 4 Claydol.

    I think that Consistancy will be better over the long run of the Grinder. If Lady Luck screws you over in 1 game, the invite might slip away. Maybe put in something for the mirror (or the classic 1-0-1 Dusknoir) but otherwise optimise it's efficiency.
     
  6. (TYranitarFReak)

    (TYranitarFReak) New Member

    consistency.

    Well, tech should only be added if it doesnt affect your consistency too much.
     
  7. Rew

    Rew Active Member

    as much as I would love to play the most teched out deck in the world, consistancy says that, one bad start and your screwed. No one will like that. Get as consistant as possible.
     
  8. Hatter™

    Hatter™ Active Member

    Heres a new one: Legally Stall.... = / lots of people will do that.. PLAYERS HAVE YOUR JUDGES READY lol

    anyway id go for consistancy
     
  9. mrdraz07

    mrdraz07 New Member

    Plox is a fairly bad example for decks needing techs IMO. The deck's problems arise out of single cards as opposed to actual matchups, so you really only need answers to those cards. And even with that knowledge, the deck is very consistent in itself...it's so comparable to LudiCargo it's sick.

    I would go for techs. The deck can very easily make some room.
     
  10. Diaz

    Diaz New Member

    Find a happy medium. You need a little of both. 4 Claydol is ridiculous.(not in a good way)
     
  11. Magic_Umbreon

    Magic_Umbreon Researching Tower Scientist, Retired

    The real question is: Spirit of the Game or victory? You're not going to get both.
     
  12. badganondorf

    badganondorf New Member

    ^Lol.

    I think that 3-4 Claydol is overkill. With 2-3 Roseannes, 4 Calls, 2 Phiones and 2-2 Claydol you're usually guaranteed to get T3 Psychic Lock if your opponent doesn't lock you first. I would say that Pachirisu is atm a Tech in Plox, not a starter because usually all you need is Ralts and Baltoy which you can get with Call/Roseanne.

    If you want to get a good record in a big tournament you need luck. You can be unlucky even though you have the most consistant list in the game. I have some own experience about it from Worlds 2006. Profesa_magma is right about happy medium, youn eed teches to do well but you need consistancy as well. But without Consistancy/Teches your record will be somewhere around 5-3 if playing Plox. Dusknoir is also IMO must in Plox because after Ginos victory some crazys may think that noones playing Dusknoir so it has the surprise factor again. In grinder you'll face some inexperienced players as well so 1-0-1 Dusknoir at least. Jirachi ex for mirror is also almost must.

    Hope that helps, good luck to the Grinder.
     
  13. FriedBlaziken

    FriedBlaziken New Member

    Yeah 3-4 is overkill.
    2-2 is the best.
     
  14. SuperStar

    SuperStar New Member

    I say that Plox is good the way it is with the Pachy and Dusknoir Tech. I mean, you can get a bad start but always be able to pull something you need. Youjust need to look at their active Pokemon, study it, figure out what they are running about 3 turns later and go from there. It's the act of being diligent. Most players can tell how to play against the opponent after seeing their first few basics. I have played GG before and i know when to pull Gallade or Gardy and when to Psychic Lock. It's a basic strategy and common snese everyone has. Pretend this, your opponent has a maxed out Pokemon as active. They have a Baltoy on the bench and some other good cards. My first reaction would be to Psychic Lock them so that they can't evolve that Baltoy into a Claydol. You don't need to worry about how good other people's starts are. Plox, IMO, is one of the MOST consistent decks made, and Dusknoir is the Ultimate tech.

    Other useful techs:

    Gengar DP- very good, i tested it. You can easily place damage on more than 1 pokemon and then Bring Down from there.

    Empoleon MD- very good tech. Attach a Scramble and Dual Spash all of the Claydol and other benched weapon.

    Omastar MD- could ruin consistency since you need a fossil but you can ruin their bench if they Candy anything. Then you go in with Warp Point and start manipulating them.

    4-3 Furret-IMO one of the most starters in the game, alongside Pachirisu GE. If you have a Ralts on the bench and a Gallade in your hand, and your opponent is about to K.O. you, juat get Candy and Scramble and you are good.

    Phione MD Evo Wish evolve benched Baltoy and go from there. Add Roseanne's Research and it's even better.

    There are so many good techs and all can help and stay with the consistency. PLOX can work with anything.
     
  15. Professor Elm

    Professor Elm Active Member

    I originally tested a 2-2 Claydol line.

    Then I tested a 3-3 Claydol line.

    Now, I'm testing a 3-4 Claydol line with an extra Celios.

    I will say, the 3-4 one gets the job done best and more consistently than my other 2 versions.
    Just solitare playing, you can tell that it's almost impossible NOT to pull out something good on T2. And having multiple Claydols out allows for simple draw recursion that is unprecedented in the game and is a necessity to draw into your useful cards like DRE, Scramble, and Candy.

    Of course, people say it's overkill, and of course I understand that almost nobody in their right mind would test such a version. BUT, the consistency of a 3-4 Claydol line has made bad starts nearly nonexistent. Although my other versions were consistent, this version is nearly flawless in it's consistency.

    BUT, this is a discussion aimed towards all decktypes not just Plox.
     
  16. SuperStar

    SuperStar New Member

    whatever you are talking about deckwise, it could use a 3-3 Claydol for more consistency. It just the way how Claydol rolls...
     
  17. Banette EX

    Banette EX New Member

    Consistancy over anyting since the Grinder are must win games until the very last one,you better go with something you are comfortable with. Also the field will be polluted with Gardilade/PLOX variants teched to the extreme,so mirror match is what you should play against alot more than any other matchup.
     
  18. SuperStar

    SuperStar New Member

    Empoleon MD can beat Plox with a good list. Spread damage and K.O. all Gardy then Omastar.
     
  19. DarkJake

    DarkJake New Member

    Why is everybody mentioning Pachi? That card is so terrible and I'm pretty sure everyone used Call Energy at Nats, not Pachi.
     
  20. ryanvergel

    ryanvergel New Member

    -1 claydol, +1 bebe.

    Anyways, as Towelie says... "I choose both!"
     

Share This Page