Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Why don't most competitive players bling out their decks?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Frost Mage

New Member
I was watching some States 2014 videos, and what I've noticed as a constant throughout them all is that almost none of their decks have FAs or any type of bling whatsoever. Is there any reason for this?
 
Just a thought- but "bling" cards cast glare from the lighting, and if they are being live streamed, the glare makes it a bit complicated for the cards to be seen.
 
Fear of clumping. The idea is that Reverse/Full Art cards are thicker than normal cards, causing them to stick together. Whether clumping is real or not is uncertain, but the psychological effects are definitely real.

Also, it's cheaper.
 
Rev cards and Full Arts have a tendency to be more prone to bending than regular cards, so a lot of times it's to avoid a marked card situation where you know what kind of card is coming with your next draw or so forth.
 
Personally I usually don't like the art styles or textures on blinged out cards. Also, it costs much more money, and seems to be a waste to me. I would prefer to have more cards for more decks over a 'cooler' looking deck.

My friend, however, prefers to max holo out his decks. I don't get it, but it's his money so whatever.
 
I only bling my deck if my favorite Pokemon are in format and I get to play with them but I have to agree with King Piplup that they tend to clump a lot. I though it was a myth but I notice my Junipers clumping 4 at a time, as well as my catchers.
 
Well, I think one reason for it for sure is because its not as worth it to have max bling. Someone I know at one point blinged out his Blastoise Keldeo Deck with all of the highest rarity cards possible (aside from being picky with Beaches) and ended up selling it all shortly after Worlds 2013. Reprints tend to devalue some cards and/or viability. The only cards I would even consider "blinging" if I ever wanted to would be Trainer staples like N, Sycamore, and Ultra Balls. Max bling just puts holes in your pocket.

That, and since people seem to start developing rifle shuffling tendencies, I can see why playing lower rarities would work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This is actually kind of a funny trend if true, as bling used to be super common with everyone aiming for full holo/rev holo decks. And of course, when Japanese cards were still allowed in the US, the ultimate bling: all holo all Japanese decks lol
 
Japanese cards were CHEAPER than English cards. and there weren't Japanese rhs until HS block. Check your facts
 
I've always been a person who changes decks moderately often, and it's pain to bling a new deck out. Cost and the fact that I'll have to trade the SRs, FAs, and Reverses from the deck I'm not using, to the one I am using. It's just a pain to bling out.
 
As a collector I'm typically against it. I tend to play with the lowest rarities of cards in order to preserve my full arts, reverse holos, etc. They can't be damaged if I don't play with them, after all.
 
For the competitive player, you generally want most competitive decks built at any given time. When taking that into account, there isn't really time/money to try and bling out those decks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top