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.