Mario: Why?

[KingGengar]

nobody's allowed to say why they think Machamp's not the best choice for the deck

Well, if Machamp weren't in the deck, it wouldn't be Mario, would it?

I've said all along, make a deck, Lucario/whatever you want, and call it whatever you want. No one is stopping anyone from making, naming, and playing decks with Lucario/anything, or Machamp/anything, or even anything/anything!

So when you say Machamp isn't the "best choice for the deck" you're wrong. It's the *only* choice for Mario. But replace Machamp if you like, and play it. It's just not Mario.

 

[Lawman]

Bolt: Next time you quote me, get it all in there and get it right please! My comment about Kant and PM telling us what deck to play was finished w/ a "/end sarcasm" notation. I know Bobby M, seen him and his family play in quite a few tourneys. He is an excellant player. The MAs in FL will need to watch out for him, since he just aged up.


Erik Nance won the thread folks. I think most ppl here know him (or know of him) and his playing skill (along with his brother). He has tested the deck, played it in tourneys and won with it also! He tells you it isnt a bad deck. May not be the BDIF, but it certainly doesn't "suck" Until SW came out and DP$ hits the streets (outside of Japan), Mario WAS a top tier or tier 2 deck. Now, that may change.

I will certainly look forward to deck ideas from Kant and PM in the future.

I have said my piece on this article and the deck itself. The discussion IMO has actually been better than the article itself.

Keith

 

[Dante63s]

Well, if Machamp weren't in the deck, it wouldn't be Mario, would it?

I've said all along, make a deck, Lucario/whatever you want, and call it whatever you want. No one is stopping anyone from making, naming, and playing decks with Lucario/anything, or Machamp/anything, or even anything/anything!

So when you say Machamp isn't the "best choice for the deck" you're wrong. It's the *only* choice for Mario. But replace Machamp if you like, and play it. It's just not Mario.

I think Bolt wants to keep the name :lol: and change Machamp. Maybe for Macargo, lol.

 

[Clear]

(sigh)

You people don't see the point here...

Most Mario decks won because they T1ed their opponent. The reason is Riolu.
Mario cannot be consistent and be a speed deck, since Machamp takes up to much space, verus anything else. and if anything else that is stage 2, he can do the job 10,000,000x better. If anything that is stage 1, it takes up less space therefore: PROFIT! More card tricks to draw out of bad situations (bad hands, drawing that crucial Buffer Piece to stay on the game... etc.)

Machamp has little to do with how Mario has been "winning", it's all Lucario, and Machamp hinders it signifigantly. Lucario is meant for speed, Machamp is based on setting up, they are great cards, but together they made a bad deck.

 

[Dante63s]

(sigh)

You people don't see the point here...

Most Mario decks won because they T1ed their opponent. The reason is Riolu.
Mario cannot be consistent and be a speed deck, since Machamp takes up to much space, verus anything else. and if anything else that is stage 2, he can do the job 10,000,000x better. If anything that is stage 1, it takes up less space therefore: PROFIT! More card tricks to draw out of bad situations (bad hands, drawing that crucial Buffer Piece to stay on the game... etc.)

Machamp has little to do with how Mario has been "winning", it's all Lucario, and Machamp hinders it signifigantly. Lucario is meant for speed, Machamp is based on setting up, they are great cards, but together they made a bad deck.

What??? I see a lot of Mario decks and Machamp helps a lot, REVENGE by far! If you dont like the deck build a better one :thumb:

 

[BigRed]

Well, if Machamp weren't in the deck, it wouldn't be Mario, would it?

I've said all along, make a deck, Lucario/whatever you want, and call it whatever you want. No one is stopping anyone from making, naming, and playing decks with Lucario/anything, or Machamp/anything, or even anything/anything!

So when you say Machamp isn't the "best choice for the deck" you're wrong. It's the *only* choice for Mario. But replace Machamp if you like, and play it. It's just not Mario.

Machamp has little to do with how Mario has been "winning", it's all Lucario, and Machamp hinders it signifigantly. Lucario is meant for speed, Machamp is based on setting up, they are great cards, but together they made a bad deck.

KG wasn't saying that Machamp is the reason Mario wins :nonono:... I think we all know that Lucario is the main hitter for this deck and Machamps place is cheap, quick dmg/stall while you get another lucario up and out.

Thanks for the input tho Clear:thumb:

 

[Sandslash7]

Clear:

You say that any stage two beats Machamp at his own game. Yet you give no evidence why or what you could substitute it with. I know that KingGengar tests very rigourously with many different types of pokemon with Lucario, (as mentioned in the Mario thread) but hasn't yet found one that he would like to replace. (It'll take awhile, but I'm sure you could dredge up the posts where he mentions all of them)

So 70 for :fighting: is bad?

Besides, you're just echoing one of the main points of the original post. We've heard it before. But so far, no card has actually replaced Machamp in Mario, because only a few are actually ok with Lucario, and then it's Lucario/Empoleon or Blissey/Lucario, and that's not Mario.


So, all you actually said in your post was Lucario would be better with anything but Machamp, right?

Well, so far, that's hasn't been the case.

 

[Jaeger]

As of right now I can not make the deck consistent enough for me to play it in a tournament. However my little bro won 2 BR with it and for some reason he can get the opening hands he needs. I agree its a cheap deck to make and if you got luck on your side by all means play it. But no matter where you stand on the issue of Mario everyone has to admit its a deck you have to pratice against before tournaments becuase it will see play.

 

[Lawman]

(sigh)

You people don't see the point here...

Most Mario decks won because they T1ed their opponent. The reason is Riolu.
Mario cannot be consistent and be a speed deck, since Machamp takes up to much space, verus anything else. and if anything else that is stage 2, he can do the job 10,000,000x better. If anything that is stage 1, it takes up less space therefore: PROFIT! More card tricks to draw out of bad situations (bad hands, drawing that crucial Buffer Piece to stay on the game... etc.)

Machamp has little to do with how Mario has been "winning", it's all Lucario, and Machamp hinders it signifigantly. Lucario is meant for speed, Machamp is based on setting up, they are great cards, but together they made a bad deck.

Ask Erik Nance if his BR victory was all predicated on T1 W's. I guarantee you it wasn't! Now, t1 or t2 damage spread probably contributed greatly to his success. In fact, you can pull his tourney report up and read it yourself.

Having played agst a Mario deck a time or two (usually in league since I run events or judge at the ones I dont run), having the Champ sitting on the bench, waiting to revenge ya, if you KO the active..that makes you think for a second or two. 70 for 1 fighting.....ya.....i'll take that.

Keith

EDIT: This is what Erik put at the end of his BR report Re: Mario "So yeah, it's my first tournament win in over a year. I'm really happy with myself, knowing that I played the deck to near-perfection. However, I do have to go ahead and spill my mind on Mario, seeing as people will probably underestimate my performance based on the deck I decided to play. @_@

I'm not personally fond of Mario because of its simplicity. I'm used to playing decks that require a great deal of thought and strategizing, something that Mario doesn't really have. This is not to say that Mario is a bad deck (or according to what many people have said, not a deck at all). Rather, Mario is a deck that relies on an extremely fast offensive push. Knowing when to Revenge or when to Aura Sphere becomes the strategy of the deck (which, well, makes it a deck). The same thing can be said of Empoleon/Lucario, a deck that resembles Mario quite a bit. For those people who will say that Empoleon/Lucario is a deck, consider the similarities between that deck and Mario. Many of my games were won simply by swarming with Lucario, and I think that many players of Empoleon/Lucario would say the same thing. How, then, is one deck a deck and the other one not?

Aside from all the complaining that Mario is "not a deck," I think that a great deal of respect should be paid to Tom Wise for touching upon something that cuts clean through a great deal of the format. While I'm still not a big fan of the simplicity that Mario offers, I am in no way ashamed to say that I won a Battle Roads with the deck. I didn't T1 anybody, and I strategized with how I handled the deck."

 

[Clear]

(F) for 70 is not bad, (F) for a conditional 70 is bad.

Machamp is cheap stall? Okay? There is something out there that are more consistant and hits harder and more consistant than he'll ever be.

I don't care how good he does because he got lucky, in more ways than one, but there are decks out there in which can get bad hands and still do good once it gets back on its feet, and it proves that it can do that. Mario cannot do that. Mario needs a Riolu lead, Mario needs to draw into RCs and Celios on his own.

There are way too many inconsistency for it to be a bad deck.

Tell me how do they get out of it other than getting th perfect hand, good decks is suppose to play out of bad hands. Not give in when it can't.

 

[BigRed]

But no matter where you stand on the issue of Mario everyone has to admit its a deck you have to practice against before tournaments becuase it will see play.

This is a very good point. Like it or not this deck will be out there and will be hard hitting. At the BR's in Manitowoc, WI there was like 5 Mario in the Masters alone. If i remember correctly at least 2 got top cut. And honestly it has an advantage; Weakness. If you think about it 2 of the main deck types are weak to it. (blissy/truk and Electivire decks) Plus The support for ALMOST every other deck out there is weak to it (Kitty/ton and plain kitty). If you look at it that way the only decks that really SHOULDN'T fear Mario are well Built Queen MT Decks because not a single card in them is weak to it. now i understand that Weakness doesn't ALWAYS mean loss but it makes it a lot harder then when not weak. Plus if you think of it this way the majority of support pokemon have ABOUT 70 hp. Take a Hurricane Deck for example: My Gatr MT Just KO'd a Lucario, smart mario player brings out w/e with a 1 nrg Champ on the bench. Plays WP. Most of the time with my Hurricane deck (later game especially) i only have 1 powered up Gatr with at most a Croconaw on the bench along with my 2/3 kitties and 1/2 Tons. I have a lose lose situation on my hands. A) Send out the Croc and hope he doesn't 1)attack PP or 2)attach dre OR scramble and get a heads. B)Send out a Support pokemon and watch it fall.

And honestly most of the time i don't even have the 2nd croc until i need it so yeah..

Mario DESERVES Respect. (I don't play it. but it still is a decent deck)

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Attach PP not attack PP sry

 

[desert eagle]

Random Half-baked Conspiracy: Submitted for your approval. Kant Shen of Toronto, Canada. The top ranked player in the Great White North and considered one of the best players in the world. Kant writes a negative article concerning a deck many players play in order to sway people against playing said deck. Or does he? Players who play mario feel nearly invincible, a acolyte to the coin and the luck of the draw.

Okay, I'm running out of twilight zone style dialogue and it's getting late so I'll get to the point. Anyone think the sole reason this article exists is to get more people to play mario? With Prime's superior arguing skills, it's obvious to me people are going to play it that much more at tournaments. For what? So Kant and his buddies at team HB can destroy a mario saturated format with whatever anti mario deck they can come up with. Since the list for mario is so tight, there's nothing the mario player can do to his own deck except watch it be destroyed at a key city championships.

lol well, I think Begfriend.dec/begTRUK/Champ TRUK/whatever other names it has now will give a huge problem to any Lucario decks (including Ramen TRUK) so yep that part's covered

While it is nice of you, I don't consider myself one of the best in the world. I don't think I'm close to on a level with Seena, Jason, Chuck, Pooka etc =X

Anyways, one of the points of this topic WAS to generate constructive discussion in one place, instead of random posts in topics arguing about this. While some people have gotten too personal (we never intended any of this to be personal), some discussion has been started, and that means this article has done part of it was supposed to do.

Now to the discussion:

Myself and many others believe that a Boost and a more versatile stage 1 is alot more consistent than a stage 2 needing candy. Odds of drawing a boost=odds of drawing a candy, but Blissey can function without the boost, while Machamp can't function well without the candy, while the candy also takes up more slots since the Boost fills up energy slots, leaving Blissey more consistent, and more versatile. We simply think Lucario can have better partners than Machamp. While still covering weakness (and covering even more weaknesses with the 2nd type), it can beat what Mario beats and more.

Bobby and I both suffered horrible beats last year at our respective nats (Bobby losing to skill hack twice =///, and me losing T2 in the t4 game), so we know a thing or two about how some bad luck can ruin your chances at a huge tournament. This is why value consistency as high as we do: to minimize the luck factor.

 

[Articjedi]

You know guys, if machamp were only a stage one, I'm pretty sure this entire article would be pointless.

BTW, four cards 70 damage on a stage one. Blissey, boost, fighting energy. I didn't know blisscario looked so much like machamp.

 

[BigRed]

Myself and many others believe that a Boost and a more versatile stage 1 is alot more consistent than a stage 2 needing candy. Odds of drawing a boost=odds of drawing a candy, but Blissey can function without the boost, while Machamp can't function well without the candy, while the candy also takes up more slots since the Boost fills up energy slots, leaving Blissey more consistent, and more versatile. We simply think Lucario can have better partners than Machamp. While still covering weakness (and covering even more weaknesses with the 2nd type), it can beat what Mario beats and more.

Bobby and I both suffered horrible beats last year at our respective nats (Bobby losing to skill hack twice =///, and me losing T2 in the t4 game), so we know a thing or two about how some bad luck can ruin your chances at a huge tournament. This is why value consistency as high as we do: to minimize the luck factor.

Right and if you notice, no one here has said that Machamp is the ONLY or even the BEST partner for Lucario all that anyone has said here is that MARIO is MAchamp and lucaRIO. you wouldn't call emploleon and Lucario Mario now would you?

 

[Clear]

You know guys, if machamp were only a stage one, I'm pretty sure this entire article would be pointless.

BTW, four cards 70 damage on a stage one. Blissey, boost, fighting energy. I didn't know blisscario looked so much like machamp.

exactly, Blissey is so much more superior partner Lucario in every way.

So I ask you again, why Machamp?

 

[BigRed]

exactly, Blissey is so much more superior partner Lucario in every way.

So I ask you again, why Machamp?

And I answer again Because it's MAchamp/lucaRIO not BLissy/lucaRIO.

 

[KingGengar]

So, it's the ownership of the name Mario that's bugging people?

I never said Machamp/ Lucario was BDIF, nor did I say Machamp or Lucario couldn't have better partners. What I said was, I *like* the way this works. Some people like "I Love Lucy." Some people think it's stupid. So is it or is it not a TV show? What makes it a TV show? Certainly not your opinion. It's a TV show because it's on TV. Mario is a deck because it's 60 cards. Mario is a good deck because people win *tournaments* (not just games) with it.

Machamp/Lucario = MARIO. Or, as I sometimes call it, "Lucky Punch." Or, as some Canadian guy called it, "Brute Force."

Medicham/Lucario = MEDICARE.

And Blastoise/Heracross = BLUE CROSS.

You can break up Lucario and Machamp and put them in separate decks, but they will find their way back. Because two Fighting dudes need to be together to see who is the best boxer. Synergy? Nope. Competition! They're trying to see who is the toughest, baddest Fighter between them.

The loser? You! When I throw an Aura Sphere, or a Low Kick, or a Brick Smash. You know, that IS funny. All this time, you guys are talking about Revenge, and you forget that Machamp PK is a part of Team Mario, whether or not he goes on the inactive list (right now, he's back on as Designated Hitter, but I might him into the cleanup slot).

Why did you forget about our beloved Brick Smash guy? Because it hits Blissey for 70 guaranteed, and you can't stop it.

But what about Revenge? Someone said, "70 for 1 Fighting is pretty good, conditional 70 for 1 is not." No, 70 for 1 is PHENOMENAL, and conditional 70 for 1 is pretty good. Blissey doesn't do 70 for 1, it does 70 for 1+Boost+Strength Charm. But Blissey is cool, and awesome. Love that egg!

 

[Articjedi]

Right and if you notice, no one here has said that Machamp is the ONLY or even the BEST partner for Lucario all that anyone has said here is that MARIO is MAchamp and lucaRIO. you wouldn't call emploleon and Lucario Mario now would you?

Which is basically the point of this article. Because Machamp isn't the best choice for the deck, it shouldn't be run in the deck in the first place. Decks tend to optimize themselves, and machamp isn't the optimal choice. What Kant is getting at, you can run any of the other choices he put in the article and most likely did better at the tournament. Mario isn't competitive because machamp can be replaced by empoleon (which I still find to be a poor choice, but that's just me), dodrio, blissey, etc.

BTW, KG, are you posting all this because you think your deck is actually good? Or are you just trying to get at every anti-mario player. Because that was the most immature post I've seen all week. All that needed was "I fart in your general direction" and you got a winner.

 

[vanderbilt_grad]

Myself and many others believe that a Boost and a more versatile stage 1 is alot more consistent than a stage 2 needing candy. Odds of drawing a boost=odds of drawing a candy, but Blissey can function without the boost, while Machamp can't function well without the candy, while the candy also takes up more slots since the Boost fills up energy slots, leaving Blissey more consistent, and more versatile. We simply think Lucario can have better partners than Machamp. While still covering weakness (and covering even more weaknesses with the 2nd type), it can beat what Mario beats and more.

I find no fault in thinking that there should be better partners ... but the energy costs on Lucario and Machamp both limit the field somewhat.

The probem with the Boost + Stage 1 is more consistant than Candy + Stage 2 argument is is Machoke. You don't *have* to get the Candy to build a Machamp, it just speeds things up if you do. In fact with Night Maint. you don't even need to hit a Candy all game long to build 4 Champs if that's really what you want to do. Celio's is both consitant and searchable ... and boost simply isn't. Swarming Lucario gives you time to build a Machamp or more.

EDIT:

Let's look at slots too for a moment.

A Blissey / Lucario might run 4-4 Blissey & 4-3-1 Lucario. That's 16 cards.

Empoleon / Lucario might run 4-3-3 Empoleon, anywhere from 1 to 3 Rare Candy, and the 4-3-1 Lucario. That's anywhere from 19-22 cards.

Mario, at least mine anyway, runs 3-2-3 Machamp, 3 Rare Candy, & 4-3-1 Lucario for a total of 19 cards.

Blissey is clearly the winner space wise but Empoleon / Lucario takes at least the same amount of deck space unless you drop the candy all together & even then you only save 1 card.

 

[desert eagle]

I find no fault in thinking that there should be better partners ... but the energy costs on Lucario and Machamp both limit the field somewhat.

The probem with the Boost + Stage 1 is more consistant than Candy + Stage 2 argument is is Machoke. You don't *have* to get the Candy to build a Machamp, it just speeds things up if you do. In fact with Night Maint. you don't even need to hit a Candy all game long to build 4 Champs if that's really what you want to do. Celio's is both consitant and searchable ... and boost simply isn't. Swarming Lucario gives you time to build a Machamp or more.

EDIT:

Let's look at slots too for a moment.

A Blissey / Lucario might run 4-4 Blissey & 4-3-1 Lucario. That's 16 cards.

Empoleon / Lucario might run 4-3-3 Empoleon, anywhere from 1 to 3 Rare Candy, and the 4-3-1 Lucario. That's anywhere from 19-22 cards.

Mario, at least mine anyway, runs 3-2-3 Machamp, 3 Rare Candy, & 4-3-1 Lucario for a total of 19 cards.

Blissey is clearly the winner space wise but Empoleon / Lucario takes at least the same amount of deck space unless you drop the candy all together & even then you only save 1 card.

Mmm I can see where you're coming from, but you lose both speed and surprise by evolving through Machoke. Not only is it predictable, the one turn delay means you won't get it out as fast as you'd want it to. Blissey doesn't NEED the boost to run at all. A t2 Blissey is about as hard to take down as a t2 Lucario, and being a stage one, its easy just to drop one down and hit whenever. It also gives you the option of retreating into it while you wait to get Lucario Lv X to save your damaged Lucario (after a castaway for celios for instance).

Also, playing 2 stage 1s gives you the comfort of being able to play TSD effectively, letting you give all your Lucarios Stance, which is a huge advantage. TSD wouldn't be close to as good in Mario because fishing back a stage 2 without a candy isnt good, while fishing back a stage 1 is the best use for TSD I've found.

Also, my Blissey plays 3-3, so thats only 14 cards =P