Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Unleashed Setlist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kingdra, Ursaring, Crobat, (primes of course) and vileplume are all pretty good, they should of put scizor in this set tho, i wanted to get a hold of some of them for next season
 
Shino Bug Master said:
We already have Dunsparce, why is it on BOTH lists?
Click to expand...

I think the Serebii page screwed up. The Dunsparce is probably that from the Expert Decks in Japan.

Dunsparce – Colorless – HP60
Basic Pokemon
[C] Return: 10 damage. Draw cards from your deck so that you have 6 cards in your hand.
Weakness: Fighting (x2)
Resistance: none
Retreat: 1
 
Magcatty Anyone? Ninetales draw??

All the primes are useable, particularly Kingdra and possibly ursaring

Jirachi is a good tech

Floatzel and Blastoise are good

Legends are Good, but lack support (LMK if you want to treade Raikou/Entei)

And all the trainers are good, particularly dual ball, good rod, Pokemon circulator, judge, engineer's adjustments and energy returner

MORE CANDY!!! OM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM...
 
^ He already had before he was even asked here. Just in another thread a day or two ago. I love search for this very reason. When someon makes a claim you can easily look at their other posts to get an idea of what the've said in the past.
 
Sabett said:
Next time point that out, instead of blurting out random unbased facts.
Click to expand...

Look here dude, I don't need to state where I get my facts if I don't feeeeel like it. I said what I said, you can believe it or not.

_____________________________________________

Vanderbilt - Thanks :thumb:
 
TheGeneral said:
Look here dude, I don't need to state where I get my facts if I don't feeeeel like it. I said what I said, you can believe it or not.

_____________________________________________

Vanderbilt - Thanks :thumb:
Click to expand...
So you mean to tell me that if you say a random post saying whether or not card X was in a yet to be released set without anything backing it up whatsoever, you would believe it at the exact same worth as someone that had seen the entire set and was making the exact same statement? I don't think so, it makes a world of difference that you've seen the set.
 
But let's see....you are assuming I stated that fact in the hopes everyone would believe me...I simply stated a fact. I was not trying to convince anyone of anything other than I know Vileplume isn't in this set. You're reading into it too much, calm down.
 
TheGeneral said:
But let's see....you are assuming I stated that fact in the hopes everyone would believe me...I simply stated a fact. I was not trying to convince anyone of anything other than I know Vileplume isn't in this set. You're reading into it too much, calm down.
Click to expand...
No, I did not assume that you were trying to convince anyone of anything, if somethings a fact, there is no convincing one way or the other, it's a fact. I assumed you were informing people about said fact, which is pretty easy to do considering that the post is on topic with the rest of the thread. Fact's also need a base though, some sort of proof behind their meaning, which your original post neglected to provide. Without it, your post has no weight or meaning.
 
That is cool with me, I don't need to validate my statement for anybody there buddy. I stated a fact, and if you ask me where that fact came from I will tell you. I don't need to post my reference and reasoning for you.

Guess what, VILEPLUME ISN'T IN THIS SET. Fact? Maybe. A statement? Definitely. Do I need proof for you to believe it? Nope. Do you have to believe me? Nope. Read it and do with it what you will, and stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

/that discussion lol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top