Because this almost always results in a rock-paper-scissors format which is "too luck-based." Similarly cards like Junk Arm, Catcher, and Collector are considered broken eecause they make decks too consistent.
Not quite. While it makes certain decks more consistent, it is "how" it makes the game "consistent"; by removing variety. You aren't a psychic when you accurate predict I am holding the ace of spades... when my deck of cards consists of 52 copies of the ace of spades. :lol: You aren't even doing the "magic" trick right with that one.
Junk Arm does make a deck more consistent, but by voiding a cost inherent to the game. If all Item cards were quite, quite weak and/or Pokemon lacked the draw/recursion power available to it, we might not have any issues. That isn't how most formats have gone. We have several useful Items that were partially balanced by how difficult it was to "spam" them. Junk Arm also takes an Item intended to be a limited piece of TecH and allows you to play the deck as if you had five.
This kind of consistency, if amplified and applied to another game mechanic, would be like something altering the basic game mechanic of your once-per-turn draw to a once-per-turn deck search: all decks become much more consistent, but all those effects that were supposed to be balanced by relying on the random draw mechanic are thrown out of whack!
Pokemon Catcher presents a problem because it completely voids the safety of the Bench. It is necessary that the Bench be partially vulnerable; if not "Bench-Sitters" become too powerful. It can be a true Bench-Sitter, meant to never be active, or you may have a deck that can easily throw up fodder to allow enough time for almost any Pokemon with almost any Energy cost to be adequately built (often fully built) while the opponent is forced to whittle away the HP on some massive walls; effectively the attack has become a "short-term Bench-sitter".
The problem is Pokemon Catcher is an Item. While this means it is not easily searched from the deck, it does mean that it costs no more to use than any other Item, and enjoys the ability to be quickly recycled via Junk Arm. In reality, it isn't about making the deck running Pokemon Catcher
more reliable, but by making other decks
less reliable in their set-up.
Pokemon Collector is more about the format than anything else. The format is too aggressive to allow a traditional "opening Pokemon" to set-up with your basic "Search your deck for X Basic Pokemon" attack, even one that plays the Pokemon to your Bench from your deck. You're almost always out a Prize and an Energy attachment from doing this. We also have a format with an extremely high focus on Basic Pokemon, so being able to grab any three of your choosing is again problematic. Lastly, even amongst supporters there just isn't that much of an alternative: in the past we had Supporters like
Roseanne's Research.
All of this really strikes me as mismanaged "power creep": almost everything is stronger than it was before, but not in proportion to the current format's HP scores or Energy acceleration.
Catcher is an especially interesting example of this. People keep complaining that Catcher is overpowered, yet Pokemon Reversal was far "too random."
The two problems are not mutually exclusive; as stated earlier Pokemon Catcher makes it too easy to strike at what should be a Benched Pokemon. Pokemon Reversal actually was the same, however many felt a false sense of security in relying on average or even "poor" coin flips to protect his/her Bench. Pokemon Reversal had also failed to cause problems in several formats, but upon closer inspection I believe this is because it frequently wasn't the "top" solution to Bench-sitters.
Pokemon Reversal was first released while Double Gust was still legal. The first format without Gust of Wind or Double Gust as legal-to-use cards also re-released Pokemon Reversal with new "2-on-2" rules (two Active Pokemon per player, not the four-player rules variant). This poor wording confused players, leading them to believe Pokemon Reversal wasn't worth it. While the Confusion was straightened out, we hit a long stretch of formats where either
a) dominant decks tended to have homogenous Benches (less added advantage in bringing forth a specific Pokemon)
b) dominant decks regularly contained a superior sniper
c) dominant decks had access to a better alternative to Bench manipulation.
The pre-errata Rare Candy played a large role as well, since it is what enabled a player to often have a Bench where, even if you could force up and OHKO the one "oddball" Stage 1/2 Pokemon, your opponent would drop a replacement the next turn; you basically traded KOing what was KOing you for the chance they couldn't recover from its loss over the next turn or two.
The pre-errata Rare Candy also made the many Stage 2 snipers more potent, including allowing supporting Pokemon to set-up so fast that the sniper could hit play quite early. Paralleling this were decks where a Stage 2 Pokemon had a built in Pokemon Reversal (or similar effect); while far to slow by today's standards, having such a feature was enough to elevate a good deck to a great deck.
Successful alternatives to Pokemon Reversal in "normal" Trainer (what would later become Item) form would be Double Gust, Pow! Hand Extension, and Poke-Blower+. Homogenous Benches made Warp Point the superior choice during some formats as well.
If we were to take a vote, however, I'd wager that almost everyone preferred Reversal. Why? Because the grass is always greener on the other side. Of course, nobody ragequit the game because of Catcher or Reversal, so clearly neither one was really that bad to begin with.
Making assumptions is bad. Message boards are not indicative of general player trends, for better or worse. I prefer having Pokemon Catcher to Pokemon Reversal, and if you sift through those irritatingly long rant threads on the subject, anywhere from one-to-six veteran or skilled players will point out why: with Pokemon Reversal decks were really just as vulnerable since the end result was the "winning" players were the ones who flipped more "heads" as needed, barring the HGSS-era "Baby Pokemon", which relied on the opponent failing Pokemon Reversal and their own player failing a Sleep Check.
If someone ragequits the game, I mean truly ragequits, how would you know if you weren't there? :wink:
tl;dr This thread is pointless; only 3 cards in this games history were deserving of a ban, ____'s Pikachu (due to its potentially giving one player an unfair advantage), Slowking NG(an errata could have fixed this), and post-BW Sableye (which could have also been errataed).
Well, I agree this thread seems pretty pointless and even with the three cards you felt need to be banned for Modified play (not 100% sold on NG Sneasel being safe for the early Modified formats).
tl;dr: Opinions vary, so try to look at historical precedent. Remember, those who don't know or ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
