Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

The Grinder: Consistency vs. Techs

I think you have the right idea honestly. For the grinder, consistency is all that maters with a deck like plox. I would go 3/3 claydol with 4 celio 4 bebe 4 call 4 roseanne EASILY. Now if I made it through to worlds, i would definitely tech it out as it has a much easier metagame to predict and counter. JMHO.
 
DragonairMaster8 said:
I think you have the right idea honestly. For the grinder, consistency is all that maters with a deck like plox. I would go 3/3 claydol with 4 celio 4 bebe 4 call 4 roseanne EASILY. Now if I made it through to worlds, i would definitely tech it out as it has a much easier metagame to predict and counter. JMHO.
Click to expand...

I am kind of feeling the same way.
I almost want to go to the extent of dropping my 1-0-1 Dusknoir line.
At this point in the game, people are always predicting the Dusknoir drop in any Plox deck, BUT I could potentially bluff my way out of it by always leaving one space open on the bench.

Anyway, of course we know Plox is one of the most consistent decks BUT even then having JUST 1 OR 2 BAD STARTUPS in the Grinder will basically eliminate you from any chance of winning an invite.

We all agree that consistency is most important BUT to what extent is very arguable. I am the full supporter of "almost no techs and all consistency" but others refuse to believe that a 3-4 Claydol line could be necessary in the least bit. BUT in the Grinder you can't afford bad starts, and it seems pretty obvious that the ones with the best luck will end up on top. I am just trying to ensure I have luck by increasing the consistency of my deck.
Oh, and btw, every game I have tested my Plox, I have gotten out T3 Psy Lock or better.

This can also apply to a wide array of decks. Just wanna hear what other people gots to say.
 
Consider the grinder metagame will essentially be nationals swiss all over again, but with an even greater percentage of GG in the mix (realistically -- maybe up to half of all decks played). Since you'll likely be playing mirror in at least half of the rounds, techs become a consistency-adding force on their own.

Also, the SOTG faerie tells me GG is a bad grinder choice. If you REALLY want to win, play $G-PLOX$.
 
With that many players in the field...you have to be willing to take some chances.

Going in with GG with G or G being my ONLY attackers is a huge risk I am not sure I want to face.

I need backup.

I ned hep.

Just my opinion.

Note: at Nationals...it appears the teched decks worked much better...but there were plenty of reports of teched decks failing right due to their techs.

Let's face it, this type of field needs a LOT of luck.

Vince
 
Techs worked wonders at Nats, because everyone was running a pretty standarized list, allowing for certain techs such as Jirachi ex, mew * d and Breloom to take unexpected prizes. At Grinders, everyone will have tested the word out of their decks to make sure that they can get the fastest set-up possible, and techs just won't cut it as much. I can forsee alot of 1-0-1 Dusknoirs still in the mix though.
 
DarkJake said:
Why is everybody mentioning Pachi? That card is so terrible and I'm pretty sure everyone used Call Energy at Nats, not Pachi.
Click to expand...

Pachi can be very good!One of the disadvantage of call energy is that it searches for less that Pachi and doesn't provide a nice starting wall like Pachi will. Also, you can run more basic energy and not be stuck will call energy when you need Psychic. ^^ Just my opinion. It's a matter of perspective.
 
3-4 Claydol line?!?!

Anywho.. I think each deck, even for the grinder needs a proper balance of both that suits the player's play style. I tech a lot of stuff into my decks, but that's only because that is what I am comfortable with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top