Will Dragon energy exist?

[signofzeta]

Just to add to why basic dragon energy should exist and why it doesn't add to gameplay.

MTG has the best model with its 5 color system, and each color being distinct. Your thought processes when paying a mono red deck, which usually consists of burn spells is different from playing a mono green, which consists of big creatures, and mana acceleration.

Not in the case with pokemon. Although I want each type to have its own identity, so far, right now, as it stands, each type isn't holding on to its own identity tightly, making so that each type is too similar in that they are almost the same. When I build a fire deck or a lightning deck, my thought processes in which cards go in to which deck are almost the same. If I am playing a water deck or a psychic deck, the way I interact with the cards are almost the same. So a reason why basic dragon energy does NOT add to gameplay but multicolored dragon cards do is because you change the way you think in how a dragon card is to be added in a deck, the types of energies to be used, and how you set up the dragon to be able to attack. Not in the case with basic dragon energy. The way you set up your pokemon for attack and ultimately evolve it into the ace pokemon is no different from evolving your metal type into its ace pokemon, and setting up the energies for attack.

It is also kind of dumb that 2 different types, namely Reshiram's Blue Flare, and Zekrom EX's strong volt do roughly the same thing, difference is the damage, and the type of energy to be discarded. They way you interact with the cards are roughly the same.

I also think that Dragon types should have more powerful attacks for the fact that it is harder to powerup a dragon attack, because you need to draw 2 specific energies or at least search for them.

If each type were to have its own distinct gameplay element, then colorless would have none of the gameplay elements that make the other 8 types unique, and that dragons would have a combination of the 8 gameplay elements, that is, one attack can hit benched pokemon directly and make the opponent discard, thus making the attack require Water and Darkness energy. As it stands, each type isn't unique. The only unique identity to Fire is that it is strong against grass, and weak against water. That is the only thing there is. The way you interact with fire decks is that you don't want a fire pokemon to face a water pokemon. This is absolutely the same as when you have a darkness pokemon and you don't want it to face against a fighting pokemon. Your thought processes are the same, but the pokemon colors are different. Thus, it doesn't add to gameplay. As I said, you only simply need to paint brown cards blue and black cards red to realize that it is the same thing.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

I'm still predicting that Dragon Energy will be a temporary thing... Kind of like the Delta Dual typings we've seen in the past EX series.

 

[signofzeta]

I'm still predicting that Dragon Energy will be a temporary thing... Kind of like the Delta Dual typings we've seen in the past EX series.

yeah, true, but I hope it isn't, and I hope it stays as multi energy cards, and I hope that there will be no more basic energies beyond the 8 already available.

Delta is different in such a way because it is because of the setting that delta species exist. When Diamond and Pearl started, Sinnoh isn't really infused with that vapor that makes delta species pokemon what they are, and that they are. In the case with Dragons, they are everywhere, and the new type is just to group together all the pokemon that requires exactly 2 different energies to attack.

So far I haven't seen any dragon types that require 3 different energies for attack. As I said before, they created the type so that multi energy cards that require 2 energy are now its own type, rather than hidden among the existing types.

 

[Otaku]

You know that I said OVER 15, or MINIMUM of 15, and NOT exactly 15. We know that the MINIMUM amount of dragons is 15 in DRAGONS EXALTED. My point is, WE NEVER HAD A SET THAT HAS THIS MANY POKEMON with MULTIPLE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS for ATTACKS. Creating the Dragon type groups these kinds of pokemon into its own type.

Yes. We. Have. It was called EX Dragon, it came out over eight years ago. You can look up the set yourself here; since I brought this up twice (three times counting this post) that is why I was confused. You got your facts wrong.

My posts were long and perhaps you're getting lost in them, so I will just focus on this one fact this time.

 

[signofzeta]

Yes. We. Have. It was called EX Dragon, it came out over eight years ago. You can look up the set yourself here; since I brought this up twice (three times counting this post) that is why I was confused. You got your facts wrong.

My posts were long and perhaps you're getting lost in them, so I will just focus on this one fact this time.

Ok, so there was EX dragon, as I was collecting Mirrodin cards at the time. It just so happens that all the pokemon that all the dragons in that set have the multi energy requirements, but yet, they are still colorless pokemon. What the dragon type is going is basically making that group its own group, rather than being hidden in a sea of colorless pokemon. Just imagine that Dragons Exalted was EX dragon, but now all the dragons have a new coat of paint and its own unique identity, so that colorless pokemon can no longer interact with it.

I don't really know if the dragon type is going to be permanent or temporary, as EX dragon was, but what they are doing is to make it easier for players to find cards that have multiple energy requirements and separate them from colorless pokemon, just by sifting through the cards.

With ex dragon, you would have put all the dragon type pokemon with the colorless pokemon, if you were to separate each type into its own pile, but not with Dragons Exalted. Dragons, with its multi energy requirement now have their own pile, and are not mixed in with the colorless pokemon, and I think that what the makers of this game are doing with the new dragon type is a good thing. The identity of the dragon in the TCG is that it has multi energy costed attacks, and they introduced that in EX dragon, or came up with the idea that dragons should have multi energy attack. Unfortunately, the dragons were still colorless pokemon, able to be killed by a rattata. As I said before, the making dragons its own type allows a special place for the multi energy attack pokemon, which most of them are dragons anyway, and the fact that they don't get killed by ratatta any more. It also gives the players a visual cue that these cards belong in a deck that uses 2 or more specific energies. So they are killing 3 birds with one stone by making the new dragon type.

As for making a basic dragon energy just like the other 8 types, the reason why it doesn't add to gameplay is simply just painting that card any other color, and it would be the same card. The objective of this game is to set up your ace pokemon. It need not matter if it is fire, water, or dragon. If it was the basic dragon energy way, it wouldn't make any different from setting up your ace water pokemon. Just attach some dragon energy and some other stuff until the attack is usable. In the current setup, where all dragons, right now, have multi energy attacks, the way in which you build a deck is much different. If your ace pokemon is Rayquaza EX, you no longer simply put it in a "dragon" deck. Now your deck has to be both fire and lightning, and drawing the required fire and lightning energies are much more difficult than simply setting up an attack that requires 2 fire energies, or a fire and a colorless.

The difference between :fire::fire: and :fire::lightning: is that one can be in any deck so long as it has fire energy in it. The other requires you to have both Fire and Lightning energy. Hence why I said before, that Colorless uses the OR and Dragons uses the AND.

Another reason why adding a basic dragon energy doesn't add to gameplay is that you simply need to look at the game rock paper scissors. There is one type in the TCG that is weak to itself, and that is psychic. We know that Grass hits water which hits fire which hits grass. We also know that fighting hits darkness which hits psychic which hits fighting. You only simply need to paint the green cards purple, the red cards black, and the blue cards brown in order to realize that the relationship between these 2 groups are the same. Likewise you only have to paint the purple cards gold and replace the eye(psychic) symbol with the dragon symbol to realize that it is no different from the interaction between 2 dragons and 2 psychics. Even if the dragon right now in its current form still have the same interaction of resistance and weakness as psychics, that is, they are weak against itself, the difference is the fact that all dragons have the multi energy requirements thus making it different in how you set up attacks, and that psychics only need to have psychic energy to set up attacks.

With the Dragon type, I don't think any other type will have multi energy requirements anymore. Regigigas with its :water::fighting::metal::colorless: attack from Stormfront is now simply a :colorless::colorless::colorless::colorless: attack in Next Destinies. There haven't been any multi energy attack in the Black and White series, and now they are making the dragon type in order to separate those pokemon that have multi energy type from the rest. It is also possible that non-dragons will no longer have multi energy attacks, so we will be seeing regigigas with only colorless in its attacks, and no more of that :water::fighting::metal::colorless: stuff. It is also possible that the dragon type is only for pokemon with attacks that uses only 2 different energies, and pokemon that use 3 or more different energies belong to whatever type they are, so we won't be seeing a Grass type with a :grass:sychic: attack, but we may see one with :grass:sychic::fighting: attack, just because it is 3 or more, and not 2, but that is highly unlikely.

I don't want basic dragon energy to exist, as I feel it adds a 9th type along with the 8, and that is already too many. Remember that the current colorless dragon isn't like the other 8 types with its own basic energy. It is also another fact that we won't be seeing basic dragon energy any time soon. Special maybe, but no basic. The fact is, the makers of this game didn't design the dragon type to be like the other 8 types with its own basic energy with its own attack, as we don't see a dragon symbol on one of its attacks. The early darkness pokemon or Metal pokemon have a:dark: or :metal: symbol for attack depending on type. There can be only 4 of each of the special dark energies, and the reason why they made basic darkness and basic metal energies was so that the Darkness and Metal type pokemon can be more common in the game without having to limit the amount of those types just because you have to have 4 or less special dark or metal energies.

With dragons, as I said above, they are grouping the multi energy attack pokemon, which are mostly dragons, into its own type, thus allowing more to be printed consistently, instead of being a gimmick for a specific set. Making them its own type allows those cards to not be lost in a sea of colorless cards, while making it distinct and different from the other 8 that have their own basic energy.

I can probably deduce the fact that the makers of this game know that 8 different basic energies is enough, and more than that is too much, although I think that 8 is already too much. Reasoning is, why do dragons not have a dragon symbol for an attack cost and thus use its own energy? I already mentioned the reasoning for the Darkness and Metal pokemon.

 

[Otaku]

If you can't tell, I disagree. While it is a bit vexing that you're editing post so much (I mean, one was a post I had already quoted, explaining why I didn't respond to certain parts), I understand that a good post can take time, and it is easy to post prematurely; happens to me all the time.

How familiar are you with Pokemon?

Off Energy requirements are not a rare thing, they just aren't "common", in part because they tend to work poorly. The only thing new about how they are being handled is making them their own type. Yes the Weakness/Resistance to them they had before didn't match the video games 100%... that's because there are 17 Types there and only 9 (going on 10) here.

You like to cite Magic: The Gathering. That can be an excellent reference for many TCG concepts but Pokemon does have its own history. You have made many responses ignoring that history.

People on this board are free to state opinions; forum user to forum user I merely ask that opinions not be stated as facts, and that you have correct facts to support your opinions when they are not merely about personal preference. Like I said, user to user; I'm not in charge of anything here.

 

[signofzeta]

If you can't tell, I disagree. While it is a bit vexing that you're editing post so much (I mean, one was a post I had already quoted, explaining why I didn't respond to certain parts), I understand that a good post can take time, and it is easy to post prematurely; happens to me all the time.

How familiar are you with Pokemon?

Off Energy requirements are not a rare thing, they just aren't "common", in part because they tend to work poorly. The only thing new about how they are being handled is making them their own type. Yes the Weakness/Resistance to them they had before didn't match the video games 100%... that's because there are 17 Types there and only 9 (going on 10) here.

You like to cite Magic: The Gathering. That can be an excellent reference for many TCG concepts but Pokemon does have its own history. You have made many responses ignoring that history.

People on this board are free to state opinions; forum user to forum user I merely ask that opinions not be stated as facts, and that you have correct facts to support your opinions when they are not merely about personal preference. Like I said, user to user; I'm not in charge of anything here.

I don't agree that the multi type works poorly. It works differently, but it doesn't work poorly. It is more difficult to set up the current dragon pokemon because of the multi requirement, and as such, the attacks should be more powerful, but this isn't the case.

I state that the makers of this game don't want a 9th basic energy as fact based on deduction and probabilities. First, there are no dragons that use its own basic energy for attacks. Why is that? if they wanted a 9th basic energy, they would have done it by now.

The reasoning of them separating the multi type into its own type is because, as a fact, you see all those dragon cards being its own type. How is that not fact? Name another reason why the dragon types are the way they are? You probably can't. "Because they feel like it" isn't a good enough of a reason, and my reasoning is the most likely case.

You probably haven't played many different decks of differing types to see that how you play the game is eseentially the same. Set up ace pokemon and attack. There are minor differences but not enough to call 2 decks different.

Now just tell me how multi energy requirements are handled poorly? I don't believe it is hard to understand how to use a pokemon that has a :grass::water: attack, or unless you are so used to the single element attacks that a :grass::water: attack seems a bit foreign, and thus bad for the game?

From my experiences on magic and Pokemon forums, it seems that Magic players are content with the 5 colors, and a 6th color can be added as long as it is distinct from the other 5. Pokemon players on the other hand, don't mind adding all the colors of the rainbow, and more, without looking at the consequences in doing so, that I can say is fact. There are no consequences for limiting the amount of basic energies to a certain amount. There are however consequences if there are too many.

 

[Human Destroyer]

Well, in general, decks are monotype, and the metagame generally supports that with the exception of the occasional tech (*COUGH*TERRAKION*COUGH*). There fore, unless you're planning on running Blend Energy, or in the case of Basics, Prism Energy, it's going to be mighty difficult to include the energy you need in there.

 

[signofzeta]

Well, in general, decks are monotype, and the metagame generally supports that with the exception of the occasional tech (*COUGH*TERRAKION*COUGH*). There fore, unless you're planning on running Blend Energy, or in the case of Basics, Prism Energy, it's going to be mighty difficult to include the energy you need in there.

With the advent of the dragon type, I think the meta... [world.. peace... ] would change so that you are forced to use multi element decks, rather than a mono element deck. You can probably still use a dragon type such as Giratina EX in a fully Psychic deck, but just have one or two grass energy just so Giratina's attack can be powered up.

Usually with the theme decks and any precon that TPCi releases, the type of deck that one uses is based off the energy that the deck includes. So you can have all psychic pokemon and Giratina, but your deck would still be :grass:sychic:.

I think it would be better for the game if the makers of this game try to get people to make multi element decks, rather than staying in a safe corner and always do mono color. In Magic, there are reasons to play mono, 2, 3, 4, or 5 color decks. In this case, it either mono or lose, and I think that should change.

When the dragon cards were first unveiled, I heard arguments that the multi energy requirements are stupid, and it should be dragon symbols for attacks, and its own basic dragon energy, much like the existing 8, thus making a 9th basic energy. I don't agree with them in such a way that I think that they are afraid to make multi element decks, and try something new, and would rather stay in the "mono niche", rather than trying something different.

The existence of dragon types is:

1. To separate multi energy attack pokemon from other pokemon, and at the same time, making those pokemon as dragons.
2. Dragons don't get killed by Ratatta
3. Force the meta to change into a multi element type of deck.

I'm going to think that stuff like blend energy, which features 4 different energy types per card, and you know that there are many combinations of 4, will be printed. Possible dual energies as well.

I think that there should be pokemon tools that can only be equipped on specific types of pokemon, such as Grass for example, and would do an extra thing if fire energy were to be attached. That adds to gameplay, and forces you to think at how you would build your deck. The current way of the "mono niche" is that I could be in the grass niche, and my friend would be in the Water niche. We both would probably use the same mindset when we construct our decks.

 

[Human Destroyer]

I understand what you're saying, but the problem is that if you run multiple types, you need multiple types of Energy. Now you need to take Trainers and maybe even Pokemon out of the deck you built just so it can fit those Energies, and that REALLY won't help in the long run.

I actually saw a very interesting video where the TCG GB video game was used to do an all types deck. Was it good? Yes. Consistent? No.

Consistency is very important in a TCG. Now, as for Magic, remember that there ARE Lands that give you multiple types of Mana. Having to put 10 Energy in the deck instead of just running 2-3 Lands is a HUGE waste of deck space.

 

[cabd]

To jump in a bit here.

We have results from Japan. People aren't really using many of the dragon types that require multiple energies.

For example, Hydreigon? Just uses Blend Energy (4 of them) and the rest dark energy.

Rayquaza? Ran in either all-lightning or all-fire decks running 4 Prism Energy.

Garchomp? Fighting energy with Blend Energy WLFM mostly.

It's not really doing much to force players to make multi-type decks. It's simply having players run 4 "fancy" energy that can provide the lesser used of the two types called for.

 

[signofzeta]

They could be more strict on type identity rather than throwing a bunch of gameplay elements to all types. That is another way to force a multi type deck.

We know that a certain particular type could do anything, healing, damage prevention, special conditions etc. If each type had its own specialized niche, then when you play a mono water deck, your specialization is hitting pokemon on the bench. To be able to recycle your energy back, better add some Lightning energy and Lightning pokemon to the deck.

That is how Magic works. Each type has its own gameplay philosophy so that to truly back up the weaknesses of one color, a second color is needed in the deck.

There could be trainer cards that allow you to put a damage counter to every fire pokemon in play, or a stadium card that makes all metal pokemon confused indefinitely. These may sound broken to you, but not if you are using a multi type deck. There could be a pokemon with an attack that states that it does 20 damage normally, but 20 + 40 damage when that pokemon has only one kind of basic energy attached to it. So it does less damage if it has a fire and water energy, but if only fire energies are attached, and special energies don't count, then that pokemon gets 60 damage.

And then because of all these type hosing cards are printed, then side decking should be implemented, so when someone plays psychic, you add some psychic hoser trainer cards in your deck to deal with them, or when your mono fire deck is being splashed by a mono water deck, switch out some fire types for some lightning types.

What I'm saying is, they need to print trainer cards or pokemon abilities that punish opponents for playing mono type decks.

 

[cabd]

They could be more strict on type identity rather than throwing a bunch of gameplay elements to all types. That is another way to force a multi type deck.

We know that a certain particular type could do anything, healing, damage prevention, special conditions etc. If each type had its own specialized niche, then when you play a mono water deck, your specialization is hitting pokemon on the bench. To be able to recycle your energy back, better add some Lightning energy and Lightning pokemon to the deck.

That is how Magic works. Each type has its own gameplay philosophy so that to truly back up the weaknesses of one color, a second color is needed in the deck.

There could be trainer cards that allow you to put a damage counter to every fire pokemon in play, or a stadium card that makes all metal pokemon confused indefinitely. These may sound broken to you, but not if you are using a multi type deck. There could be a pokemon with an attack that states that it does 20 damage normally, but 20 + 40 damage when that pokemon has only one kind of basic energy attached to it. So it does less damage if it has a fire and water energy, but if only fire energies are attached, and special energies don't count, then that pokemon gets 60 damage.

And then because of all these type hosing cards are printed, then side decking should be implemented, so when someone plays psychic, you add some psychic hoser trainer cards in your deck to deal with them, or when your mono fire deck is being splashed by a mono water deck, switch out some fire types for some lightning types.

What I'm saying is, they need to print trainer cards or pokemon abilities that punish opponents for playing mono type decks.

So you want pokemon to be magic. No thanks. I like my monotype decks. And sideboards don't work here.

The metagame, including typing, gets along just fine without all that.

 

[espeon200]

We know that a certain particular type could do anything, healing, damage prevention, special conditions etc. If each type had its own specialized niche, then when you play a mono water deck, your specialization is hitting pokemon on the bench. To be able to recycle your energy back, better add some Lightning energy and Lightning pokemon to the deck.

That is how Magic works. Each type has its own gameplay philosophy so that to truly back up the weaknesses of one color, a second color is needed in the deck.

Here is the biggest flaw I see with this argument: Magic Lands =/= Pokemon Energy. They are similar in many ways, but they are fundamentally different in a big one.

The fact is that lands are independent of the cards they are used with. You don't attach lands to a monster you summon, you tap them and then during your next turn they are untapped. While you only get to play a single land down normally each turn, as long as you have those lands in play (and nothing gets rid of them) you can use them over and over again with different cards.

In Pokemon, energies are not independent of cards. You can't play down a Lightning Energy on one turn and use it to attack with Zekrom's Bolt Strike, then the next turn use it to pay for your Mewtwo EX's X-Ball. You have to make the deliberate choice every turn on which Pokemon you want to use your single Energy attachment on and commit that energy to that Pokemon only. Sure, there are a few cards that allow you to re-allocate resources after they have been played, but they are the exception, not the rule.

I have more to say about this, but I don't really have the time to say it right now. Basically it sounds like your argument is "Magic does it, and it works for Magic, so it should work the same way in Pokemon." The thing is, I enjoy Pokemon more than Magic because of its differences.

 

[signofzeta]

I still think they should print cards that punish opponents for playing mono type decks, and reward players for playing multi type decks.

I gave an example where if an opponent has only one type of basic energy attached to his pokemon, your attack does more damage to it. Likewise, another attack could make your pokemon do more damage if it has 2 of any different basic energy. There could also be a drawback type of attack where it damages itself if it has only special energies or one kind of basic energy attached.

There could be stadium cards that give special conditions to a specific type

There could also be trainer cards that does something more if you have more than one kind of basic energy in play.

So many ideas for cards that could punish mono decks and reward multi decks, and if the format changes so that there are only these kinds of cards that reward players for playing multi decks, then I think that is how it should be done, even if it was only for a season. Then for next season, they could again, try something different.

Apparently in pokemon, a lot of mono type decks are made, is because there is no interaction between cards of differing types, even for 2 cards on your side of the field.

 

[solo59486]

The reason for only mono type decks in the metagame is because none of the multitype cards work well together.

 

[Otaku]

signofzeta: I can see you still haven't brushed up on the history of Pokemon. While obvious younger than Magic: The Gathering, in the U.S. alone the Pokemon TCG goes back to 1999. So right now, you're firing off comments that are ignoring most of the game's 13 year history.

As you don't know, we are struggling to communicate. Repeatedly you will make comments that are false. I am not accusing you of lying, but of being uninformed. For example, I made the comment that most cards with multiple Energy-Type requirements have struggled, and that the off-type Energy requirement mechanic has done poorly.

This does not mean I dislike this mechanic; actually I am fond of it. It doesn't mean it can't work; what it means is that the cards that have used it have not fared all that well. Likewise reports of Pokemon being a game of mono-Type decks reflects the current metagame, not the full history of the game.

The first dominant deck of the game was Haymaker, and the earliest build I've seen for it was Fighting/Lightning, and requiring basic Energy cards of both Types. Later builds might run as many as four basic Energy Types: Fighting, Fire, Lightning, and Psychic.

The current format has fantastic Energy acceleration, but the most successful (next to Double Colorless Energy) only affect basic Energy cards. Normally running multiple Energy-Types is, if not common, hardly uncommon. With the power provided by the Energy acceleration coupled by Pokemon that can use any Energy Type or get by with a substitute, the format doesn't see a lot of multiple Energy-Type decks (though many decks use multiple Pokemon-Types).

To elaborate, any Pokemon has access to Rainbow Energy. Basic Pokemon have access to Rainbow Energy and Prism Energy, allowing up to eight slots that are "any Energy". Soon with the Blend Energy cards, some multiple Energy-Type requiring decks will have 12 Special Energy cards that can fill their Energy needs!

With that much support, the "off-type" requirements shouldn't be as great a hindrance as in the past... though we have had successful decks that had such requirements... though at the moment none come to mind.

...

What? Like I said, 13 years of history! :lol:

 

[SMP88]

I fail to see how a multi type deck/format is any better than a single type one. There's really no need to force ourselves into a multi type format

 

[Sapphire Birch]

To jump in a bit here.

We have results from Japan. People aren't really using many of the dragon types that require multiple energies.

For example, Hydreigon? Just uses Blend Energy (4 of them) and the rest dark energy.

Rayquaza? Ran in either all-lightning or all-fire decks running 4 Prism Energy.

Garchomp? Fighting energy with Blend Energy WLFM mostly.

It's not really doing much to force players to make multi-type decks. It's simply having players run 4 "fancy" energy that can provide the lesser used of the two types called for.

Not sure where you got the info about rayquaza decks using 1 energy type and 4 prism. Rayquaza decks definitely use both fire and lightning basic energy. Prism isn't a good in rayquaza decks anyway

 

[King Piplup]

While the announcement seems to indicate we will get a Dragon Energy, I really think this is just a "error" by the production team.