Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

There is no such thing as an auto-loss

kristi

kristi

New Member
At the beggining of this season I would not have agreed with this statement. A couple matches changed my mind. Infernape beating Empoleon. GG beating bannette. Magmortar beating a GOOD wailord. Magmortar beating Empoleon. Me almost beating bannette with GG. All of these matches may not seem like a lot, but at the time I was sure that they would end up differently. No matter what matchup, a deck is a deck and a player is a player. There are advantages, but I no longer think that there is such a thing as an auto-loss.

Do you agree with this statement???

Discuss.
 
in my opinion, there was never such a thing as a 100% all the time no matter what autoloss. There's always a chance!
 
The term auto loss more refers to the matchups as: Not winnable under normal curcumstances, but with the right luck there is still a chance. That is how I presceive it, anywho.
 
Ignatious said:
The term auto loss more refers to the matchups as: Not winnable under normal curcumstances, but with the right luck there is still a chance. That is how I presceive it, anywho.
Click to expand...

Same here. Any given deck on any given day can donk someone.
 
Yes there are auto-losses. Mainly because Pokemon came up with an unbelievably broken attack called Psychic Lock that has absolutely no counter possible. Therefore Plox automatically wins against decks that count on powers to attack.
 
There is never a 100% auto loss, since no matter how bad the matchup is, your oponent could draw into a dead hand, and you could get a god start, then donk them early on.
 
Did you know that there is a very small but nonetheless calculable probability that a tennis ball will go right through a brick wall rather than bounce off it? Quantum mechanics allows such wierd behaviour.

Auto-losses in pokemon are somewhat similar but without such extremely low odds. Play in a tournament where every other player has a deck that totally counters yours and nearly every time you will finish dead last. Only nearly, sometimes you may win one of the auto-loss matches and finish second to last! In matchplay because you have to win twice you just can't expect to beat your auto-loss.
 
I played one of the original versions of Mario early in its life and faced an Infernape deck. Should be heavily in my favor. Problem was, I prized all 4 Machops. Too difficult to come back from when the first 2 prizes I took werent Machop. I guess anything can happen.:thumb:
 
TLesky said:
I played one of the original versions of Mario early in its life and faced an Infernape deck. Should be heavily in my favor. Problem was, I prized all 4 Machops. Too difficult to come back from when the first 2 prizes I took werent Machop. I guess anything can happen.:thumb:
Click to expand...

This wasn't an ato lose, but I played against a guy at nats that apparently had on his first turn (i went first) active chimchar rare candy, DRE ape lv.x. He played a celio and gave up, as all 3 ape where prized. :lol:
 
magikarp.dec is an autoloss to just about everything..1 karp and 59 water energy. Good luck with getting to the second energy attachment.

or any deck where you run the wrong energy so you can't attack and have no powers or bodies to inflict knockouts.

If your definition of auto-loss is that it always looses then just come up with an example deck that can never win, to show that auto-losses do exist. If your definition of an auto-loss is the more reasonable one of a very poor matchup that you rarely win then there are lots of matchups even between tournament decks that fit that definition.

Either way 'auto-losses' exist.
 
NoPoke said:
magikarp.dec is an autoloss to just about everything..1 karp and 59 water energy. Good luck with getting to the second energy attachment.

or any deck where you run the wrong energy so you can't attack and have no powers or bodies to inflict knockouts.

If your definition of auto-loss is that it always looses then just come up with an example deck that can never win, to show that auto-losses do exist. If your definition of an auto-loss is the more reasonable one of a very poor matchup that you rarely win then there are lots of matchups even between tournament decks that fit that definition.

Either way 'auto-losses' exist.
Click to expand...

Lol, in our cities, Magikarp T2'd Magmar, thus winning the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top