Your Definition of "Rogue"
- Thread starter RogueDecker
- Start date
- Status
Otaku
Active Member
I think I must concur with TheDarkTwins on this. If anything, I think we should either coin a new term or take a spectrum approach to "rogue" decks. From the "random rogue" which may include the "collection" deck of the completely new player or might cut off at simply "a functional deck with a coherent theme but not one recognized by the vast majority of players". The other end would be the...
I need a good word for a rogue that is all stealthy and capable of not only robbing you blind but killing you if the need arises.
Got it.
The Ninja deck! The rogue deck that is tweaked for the top decks of the format!
At least with that lame an attempt I don't have to worry about my naming convention catching on.
I need a good word for a rogue that is all stealthy and capable of not only robbing you blind but killing you if the need arises.
Got it.
The Ninja deck! The rogue deck that is tweaked for the top decks of the format!
At least with that lame an attempt I don't have to worry about my naming convention catching on.
Otaku talked me into posting on this, for the record. =P
In short, a proper Rogue deck is a competitive and well-crafted deck that does something unexpected. It can be a new treatment to an old concept, a new pairing to achieve an alternate win condition, or (ideally, for me) something so completely out of the blue that your opponent is caught unprepared.
I like this definition, because it's true - playing a competitive Rogue deck, you'll have to explain everything to the opponent, and you'll see them standing around between matches trying to convey to their friends how they lost.
In short, a proper Rogue deck is a competitive and well-crafted deck that does something unexpected. It can be a new treatment to an old concept, a new pairing to achieve an alternate win condition, or (ideally, for me) something so completely out of the blue that your opponent is caught unprepared.
I like this definition, because it's true - playing a competitive Rogue deck, you'll have to explain everything to the opponent, and you'll see them standing around between matches trying to convey to their friends how they lost.
WittyNameHere
New Member
It's not rogue if you post it online.
I consider rogue to be strategy, not cards. I hate when people saymy ideas aren't rogue because I played transciever/ Claydol/ Uxie or whatever the popular staple is
I consider rogue to be strategy, not cards. I hate when people saymy ideas aren't rogue because I played transciever/ Claydol/ Uxie or whatever the popular staple is
Physics Squirrel
Active Member
Keyword is unexpected.
A rogue deck benefits from the fact that other players don't know what to do against it. Once people become familiar with the deck, the deck either (a) stops being good because it now lacks the element of surprise and people know how to play around it, or (b) becomes an archetype.
A rogue deck benefits from the fact that other players don't know what to do against it. Once people become familiar with the deck, the deck either (a) stops being good because it now lacks the element of surprise and people know how to play around it, or (b) becomes an archetype.
waynegg
CotD Editor<br>Forum Moderator
Rogue deck- n.- 1. a deck with a strategy so unique, no one anticipates it coming or can plan for a counter strategy and which often uses cards that aren't commonly seen in other decks. 2. the initial stage of a meta deck; before it is widely known and used. see also Sablelock (once upon a time), Alchemy, Flipping Out.
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
99% of the time, he would be correct.
Otaku
Active Member
Not according to many of the proposed definitions on this thread. Joking aside, the proposed definitions for a "rogue" deck usually require the deck "be good", as in capable of winning consistently. When trying for a definition, hyperbole is not your friend. Even ignoring the "be good" requirement, rogue decks are probably "good" at least 20% of the time, bad 20% of the time, and somewhere in between 60% of the time.
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
I don't have exact percentages (obviously), but I do believe that a deck needs to be capable of winning consistently to deserve the term 'rogue' . . . unless you think that 'rogue' should just be a synonym for 'bad'.
The only really successful rogues of the last 2 seasons have been Gyarados and Sablelock, and they have obviously mutated into archetypes.
The only really successful rogues of the last 2 seasons have been Gyarados and Sablelock, and they have obviously mutated into archetypes.
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
It was more aimed at the fact that people are so ready to claim that their deck is rogue just because it isn't SomethingChomp, Machamp, or Gengar.
Old archetypes, less-played archetypes, failed archetypes, archetypes with a new tech, so-called 'original' random pairings of inferior Pokemon . . . they all get called 'rogue' at some time or another.
I see this as being a bit insulting to the REAL rogue deck builders - the people that come up with amazing meta counters out of nowhere. Seeing as the term seems to carry some kind of prestige in the TCG, I would rather it was saved for them.
Old archetypes, less-played archetypes, failed archetypes, archetypes with a new tech, so-called 'original' random pairings of inferior Pokemon . . . they all get called 'rogue' at some time or another.
I see this as being a bit insulting to the REAL rogue deck builders - the people that come up with amazing meta counters out of nowhere. Seeing as the term seems to carry some kind of prestige in the TCG, I would rather it was saved for them.
LegendaryLugia
New Member
Gengar C did pretty well as well.
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
I don't consider that rogue.
It's a VERY standard archetype with a new tech.
By that standard, Machamp/Umbreon would be a rogue deck and I could turn my Luxchomp into a rogue by putting in a 1-1 Donphan.
Scipio
New Member
No, that would be a silly pile of junk. Mamoswine cannot donk (Needs 3 energy...pschyeahright) and I highly doubt it has favored matchups across the board. Rogue is not being different for the sake of being different. Rogue is taking down the meta because of being different.
LegendaryLugia
New Member
The Garchomp C line in Gengar C wasn't a tech, it was a core part of the strategy. It was like the "chomp" in "LuxChomp". If it was just a tech, then I agree, it wouldn't be a rogue deck.
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
I wouldn't call it a 'core part of the strategy'. Gengar C didn't really have a strategy as such, unless you count 'attack with Chomp or Gengar depending on which gets you a Prize'. Chomp was like an alt attacker in a Gengar deck.
Not saying it was a bad deck btw, just that I wouldn't call it rogue anymore than I would call Machamp + another attacker rogue.
Not saying it was a bad deck btw, just that I wouldn't call it rogue anymore than I would call Machamp + another attacker rogue.
And how is Sablelock a roque then 
?
Flygon/Torterra :3
And Bronzong4 is the most underlooked card ever xD
e:/ underrated or overlooked, not underlooked xD
?Flygon/Torterra :3
And Bronzong4 is the most underlooked card ever xD
e:/ underrated or overlooked, not underlooked xD
- Status