Trump Card ban and Erratas

[vaporeon]

I've been seeing a lot of talk about this on many Pokemon websites as well as youtube. Many players don't like the idea of banning cards (which I'm in favor of for the health of the game) and just want the card errata-ed. The thing is erratas don't work that way or the way the players want it to work. A errata should only be issued IF a card creates issues where there are many different understandings of that one card. For example was Steven's Advice from ex Hidden Legends which reads "If you have more than 7 cards (including this one) in your hand, you can't play this card". Players did not know how to use this card since more than 7 cards means at least 8, which was not the intended use or understanding of the card and was errata-ed to "If you have 7 or more cards".

LTC does not meet the requirements for an errata because the card is as intended and to main a healthy format, the card was banned. Lately the game has placed erratas on cards that dont meet the requirement such as Pokemon Catcher, which should have been banned or restricted. Perhaps when the format changes and sets are rotated, LTC can come back. Maybe they make a promo with a completely new effect.

I know people are worried about night march and flareon but LTC doesn't help as much as you think it does.

 

[PokePop]

I'll have to disagree on your definition of the requirements for an "errata".
"Fixing" a card is a perfectly correct use of an errata.
You point of that it has been done before, with Rare Candy being errata'd before they released a new print of the card that would have changed it via the mechanism of "most recent print".

Also, Pokemon Japan has errata'd a card for that purpose themselves in the past.
Remember Brock's Ninetales?
It was so broken that Pokemon Japan errata'd the card to strip it from copying the Pokemon Powers of the cards it was "shapeshifting" into even before it had been printed in English.
So we got the already "nerfed" card here and never had to ban or errata it in our formats.

MtG and other games use the "fix" errata as well, so you can't say it wouldn't meet the "requirement". The requirement doesn't exist.

 

[vaporeon]

I'll have to disagree on your definition of the requirements for an "errata".
"Fixing" a card is a perfectly correct use of an errata.
You point of that it has been done before, with Rare Candy being errata'd before they released a new print of the card that would have changed it via the mechanism of "most recent print".

Also, Pokemon Japan has errata'd a card for that purpose themselves in the past.
Remember Brock's Ninetales?
It was so broken that Pokemon Japan errata'd the card to strip it from copying the Pokemon Powers of the cards it was "shapeshifting" into even before it had been printed in English.
So we got the already "nerfed" card here and never had to ban or errata it in our formats.

MtG and other games use the "fix" errata as well, so you can't say it wouldn't meet the "requirement". The requirement doesn't exist.

I see what you mean but I consider it a "nerf" rather than an errata, similar to the buff Potion received. I don't think Potion would count as an errata. Per Google, it means this.

er·ra·tum
iˈrätəm,-ˈrā-,-ˈrat-/
noun
plural noun: errata

an error in printing or writing.
a list of corrected errors appended to a book or published in a subsequent issue of a journal.

Pretty much everywhere you look, "errata" means Error in print. This is why I feel the word has been abused lately and rather than ban the card, TPC would just change the text. Whether or not a card is overpowered to underpowered, if the card is preforming as intended, which Rare Candy, Pokemon Catcher, Brock's Ninetails and LTC did. I'm not trying to spread misinformation or anything, just sharing my view on what an errata is supposed to be.

I think the only card that should have received an errata was Slowking since it was a translation error. Im sure there are others but I can't think of an example.

 

[PokePop]

Depends on how you define "error".
It was an error to print such an over-powered card.

 

[Otaku]

To quote Mr. Popo of DBZ Abridged: Pecking order!

When a card is having a significantly undesirable effect on the format that is not due to faulty wording but faulty design the first option is to wait for rotation. If that isn't happening fast enough, then we move onto the next option: reprint the card with new text so justify issuing an erratum for the older copies play as the new. This is especially useful for cards that for whatever reason, just aren't going away.

If there are no future printings of the card planned and rotation is too far away, then it is appropriate to consider a non-corrective erratum, allowing you to basically admit "We messed up by releasing this card as is, even though it has the correct effect text we intended." If that isn't an option, then banning is the final resort. These last two are mentioned in a separate paragraph for more than just formatting; just as individually these are separated by degrees of desirability,so too is there a major gap between the first two options and the last two; they can create major confusion for players.

Everything but waiting for a card to naturally rotate carries big risk as there will be cards counting on that particular effect (or something similar) to balance them out. Issuing an erratum is only preferable to "banning" because it keeps the customer (the player) from losing use of the card in question prematurely and if done well lessens or solves the problem without leaving a "gap" in the intended card effects.

For Lysandre's Trump Card the best option was to not release it with an effect that was blatantly going to cause problems - unless there were some phenomenal mill cards coming out it was pretty clear this was going to all but eliminate a win condition (bad luck as well as misplays happen, so you could still deck out) as well as taking a long time skill for this game (long term resource management) and nearly eliminating its role. Many have asked "Why not simply errata it?" but there is no "simple erratum" that can fix it. I assume that if the-powers-that-be had come up with one, they'd have gone with that instead. While I haven't exactly been debating it with the greatest minds of Pokémon (they understandably don't run in my circles) I've seen enough "suggestions" for how to fix Lysandre's Trump Card via erratum and none have looked like they would actually address everything as well and with less confusion than a ban.

 

[PokePop]

The biggest issue with LTC is that they brought back VS Seeker at the same time.
If there was no easy, reliable way to get it back, then it wouldn't be broken.
But having both of these cards in the format at the same time created an infinite loop.
Infinite Loops are bad.

 

[vaporeon]

I think what I failed to mention was the only time a errata should be issued for a card like this is if they plan to give the card a new but similar effect on a reprint. I stand by the comment I made before where I said 4 of every card at any given point is too good. TPC needs to implement a yugioh style ban and restriction list tailored to the current format since we seem to be going many years without rotation.

This would allow sets to stay around longer (since a lot of players want to play their favorite Pokemon) or completely do away with rotation and let the ban list serve as the format. One thing a game should never do is not reprint a card because the others are out of hand. I feel since the BW sets released, balance was the one thing they did not seem to care about and its a shame the bad balancing and odd card interaction got so deep into the XY sets.

The only action for LTC was to ban because not only are Trainers powerful, the Pokemon are also very powerful. With Skymin EX and Skyfield, you can have a infinite "setup" loop. I think VS Seeker is a healthy card for the format and I also dont think LTC is completely unhealthy for the game but printing a card that completely recycles a deck is never a good idea but we could put things like VS Seeker to 1 per deck via a restriction list.

I think a correct reprint of LTC would be good if it were something along the lines of "If this card is in your discard pile and you would lose the game due to 0 cards in your deck, shuffle 5 (or whatever is balanced) cards from your discard pile into your deck. You can't play a supporter card this turn. Place this card into the Lost Zone" or simply If this card is in your discard pile and you would lose the game due to 0 cards in your deck, you don't lose and continue the game normally. Place this card into the Lost Zone That way the card does what its supposed to do, and thats to prevent decking. Mechanics like the Lost Zone, when done right are to prevent abuse of powerful card so future card idea and designs aren't impacted by creep. I would love to see the Lost Zone return because it really felt like the game was more strategic. I would also like to see cards that can place cards into the Lost Zone, like Soul Release in Yugioh for the purpose of keeping things like Night March and Friends in check.

Overall I feel the game is heading in the right direction but I feel placing and errata on LTC is just as bad, if not worst than players resistance to banning because it enables bad card design, for the sake of sales and then completely warp the format by changing the effect.

 

[aus_pokedad]

Personally, I think errata ing VS Seeker to not be able to bring back Lysandre's Trump would have been the best approach. It would have broken the infinite loop that Pokepop is referring too and making it difficult to play Trump more than once per game. Yes there would still be ways to loop the card, but I suspect they would be inefficient enough that the game could cope.

 

[vaporeon]

Personally, I think errata ing VS Seeker to not be able to bring back Lysandre's Trump would have been the best approach. It would have broken the infinite loop that Pokepop is referring too and making it difficult to play Trump more than once per game. Yes there would still be ways to loop the card, but I suspect they would be inefficient enough that the game could cope.

The best thing to do here is "errata" LTC with additional text saying Place this card into the Lost Zone after use and return the Lost Zone mechanic to the game. Its a bad idea to place specific card on anothers text for the purpose of restriction use.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on how you define "error".
It was an error to print such an over-powered card.

Well, I define error, for the sake of trading card games as Translation error, misprint of card text or unintentional use of card, through understanding (like Waboku in Yugioh). I feel bad card design should never be fixed through erratas unless the card is getting a reprint, like the "use newer card effect for older copies of the card" rule. I think a fix for LTC should be put into effect through a reprint.

 

[totoro]

I actually like the "lost zone" errata, but that area of play seemed specific to a given era of the TCG and the powers that be seem to have no intention of returning to it. Agree with pop; the return of VS seeker spelled doom for the survival of LTC. The card text tried hard to make it non-recyclable, but VS seeker was like a tax loophole.

 

[tutti]

They could've just changed the text to this:

"Each player shuffles all cards in his or her discard pile into his or her deck. This card can't leave either player's discard pile."

 

[JandPDS]

The biggest issue with LTC is that they brought back VS Seeker at the same time.
If there was no easy, reliable way to get it back, then it wouldn't be broken.
But having both of these cards in the format at the same time created an infinite loop.
Infinite Loops are bad.

I would rather that they ban vs seeker then last resort. Nationals and Worlds will be boring Night March/Flarion matches. Last resort was the only counter to those decks. I don't like a format where decks can be played without a counter to them. Last resort should be changed so that it only shuffles in both players Pokémon and Energy NO Trainers.

 

[King Piplup]

I would rather that they ban vs seeker then last resort. Nationals and Worlds will be boring Night March/Flarion matches. Last resort was the only counter to those decks. I don't like a format where decks can be played without a counter to them. Last resort should be changed so that it only shuffles in both players Pokémon and Energy NO Trainers.

This is hyperbole far beyond reality.

Flareon ironically needed Trump Card, and Night March has faults as well. Nothing in the game has ever been perfectly dominant, and that didn't change now.

 

[Tagrineth]

I think what I failed to mention was the only time a errata should be issued for a card like this is if they plan to give the card a new but similar effect on a reprint. I stand by the comment I made before where I said 4 of every card at any given point is too good. TPC needs to implement a yugioh style ban and restriction list tailored to the current format since we seem to be going many years without rotation.

I really don't understand where you get this conclusion from Lysandre's. Also being able to run 4 of cards in a 60 card deck still technically means you have less access to the cards than you would a 3-of in a 40 card deck, so your yugioh comparison STILL fails.

Also, "going many years without a rotation"? Rotation was skipped one single time, when DP1 through Great Encounters got to stay an extra year. The resulting format that grew too big ended up breaking the game severely and forced PCL to do a special pre-worlds deep rotation to get rid of all the crazy.

This would allow sets to stay around longer (since a lot of players want to play their favorite Pokemon) or completely do away with rotation and let the ban list serve as the format. One thing a game should never do is not reprint a card because the others are out of hand. I feel since the BW sets released, balance was the one thing they did not seem to care about and its a shame the bad balancing and odd card interaction got so deep into the XY sets.

For the most part people can still play their favourite pokemon, just not the exact same cards. Gotta adapt regardless. Even with a "slower" rotation you gotta let go of your past loves eventually. If anything, a "slower" rotation will give people even more time to become attached to their pet decks and make rotation even MORE annoying.

Also the balance in the BW sets is just fine. Other than the rare occasional anomaly - for example it definitely looks like PCL's playtesters overlooked the Seismitoad + Hammers + LTC interaction - this format has been more or less exactly how PCL wanted it to be. For example for all the whining and crying I can remember seeing about Mewtwo EX, it's patently obvious that PCL intended for the format to be centered around Mewtwo EX, they decided it would be Mewtwo's time to shine and so it was. Numerous cards were released that could deal with Mewtwo EX in various ways, especially via attacks that threw away a lot of energy or were just really cost efficient, which prevented people from actually building explicitly Mewtwo-CENTRIC decks, but still ensured that the card would be basically everywhere.

The only action for LTC was to ban because not only are Trainers powerful, the Pokemon are also very powerful. With Skymin EX and Skyfield, you can have a infinite "setup" loop. I think VS Seeker is a healthy card for the format and I also dont think LTC is completely unhealthy for the game but printing a card that completely recycles a deck is never a good idea but we could put things like VS Seeker to 1 per deck via a restriction list.

I... I really don't get you. So first you say

The only action for LTC was ban because not only are Trainers powerful but so are Pokemon.

But then you say I don't think LTC is completely unhealthy followed by printing a card that completely recycles a deck is never a good idea.

Also, VS seeker is a healthy card for the format followed by we could put things like VS seeker to 1 per deck.

So which is it? Is LTC healthy or is it never a good idea? And why should we attempt to keep a card that is "never a good idea" where the "only action is ban" by limiting a "healthy card" like VS Seeker to 1?

I think a correct reprint of LTC would be good if it were something along the lines of "If this card is in your discard pile and you would lose the game due to 0 cards in your deck, shuffle 5 (or whatever is balanced) cards from your discard pile into your deck. You can't play a supporter card this turn. Place this card into the Lost Zone" or simply If this card is in your discard pile and you would lose the game due to 0 cards in your deck, you don't lose and continue the game normally. Place this card into the Lost Zone That way the card does what its supposed to do, and thats to prevent decking. Mechanics like the Lost Zone, when done right are to prevent abuse of powerful card so future card idea and designs aren't impacted by creep. I would love to see the Lost Zone return because it really felt like the game was more strategic. I would also like to see cards that can place cards into the Lost Zone, like Soul Release in Yugioh for the purpose of keeping things like Night March and Friends in check.

Okay first of all your idea for LTC text makes no sense at all. What does it do when you play it? You designed a Supporter that you never actually want to PLAY because its effect triggers from the discard pile but when you play it it goes to the Lost Zone? Because that's what it reads like. Also that would be a horrible errata because it doesn't look anything like the original effect at all. At that point you just design a new card.

The DISCARD PILE should be able to prevent abuse of powerful cards. Pokemon has historically not had that much strong discard pile recursion. Usually you have to 'pay' for good discard recursion in some way - either by throwing away more resources (Item Finder/Junk Arm/Dowsing Machine), by using an attack that doesn't deal damage (Sableye's Junk Hunt, I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of...), or by playing an inefficient card and giving up stronger effects (Plasma Triad).

Also the very concept of the Lost Zone gets undermined over time because eventually there will be ways to manipulate or retrieve cards in the Lost Zone. Using Yugioh as an example of why the Lost Zone is a good mechanic is horrid. A lot of the most abusive Yugioh decks historically have been ones that abuse the RFG mechanic pretty hard and there was at one point an entire archetype that was basically good because it could counter RFG shenanigans (Gravekeepers)

Overall I feel the game is heading in the right direction but I feel placing and errata on LTC is just as bad, if not worst than players resistance to banning because it enables bad card design, for the sake of sales and then completely warp the format by changing the effect.

...so why do you suggest erratas if you feel it's worse than banning it? You make no sense here.

 

[vaporeon]

I really don't understand where you get this conclusion from Lysandre's. Also being able to run 4 of cards in a 60 card deck still technically means you have less access to the cards than you would a 3-of in a 40 card deck, so your yugioh comparison STILL fails.

Also, "going many years without a rotation"? Rotation was skipped one single time, when DP1 through Great Encounters got to stay an extra year. The resulting format that grew too big ended up breaking the game severely and forced PCL to do a special pre-worlds deep rotation to get rid of all the crazy.

I made the Yugioh comparison because in yugioh, powerful cards are restricted instead of being the max (3 per deck). Yugioh also doesn't have the sheer draw power Pokemon has. The fact you "can" most of your deck in one turn in Pokemon tips the 3 card, 40 deck comparison to Yugioh. In Pokemon, you start with a 47 card deck in most cases with a 7 card hand. My Yugioh deck is 46 cards for example just because of its build but only 1 card in the deck allows me to draw versus the at least 9 cards in Pokemon that let you draw for 6 plus.

A lot of cards are too powerful in Pokemon. Laser, hammers, max potions, ace specs, over powered Pokemon, etc and other than the ace specs, you can play 4 of all of them and most decks now are completely over dominate. LTC is a good bad because of all the other powerful cards you can recycle.

Also allowing the BW sets to exist so long into the XY sets warped what XY could have been and as a result, we still have powerful pokemon and trainer. The rotation BW did have was made useless because most of the cards were reprinted and still exist in the format.

For the most part people can still play their favourite pokemon, just not the exact same cards. Gotta adapt regardless. Even with a "slower" rotation you gotta let go of your past loves eventually. If anything, a "slower" rotation will give people even more time to become attached to their pet decks and make rotation even MORE annoying.

Thats the thing though, people "can't" let go and this is proven by the LTC ban. A lot of cards that existed early BW "still" exist in the format today through massive reprints. The only game changing cards not reprinted were Klingklang BW, Sableye and Dark Patch BUT they still exist in expanded. Darkrai EX (The same one) is still around. Mewto EX is still around and its been years. The rotation failed to do what is was supposed to do and if they want to reprint everything to make popular cards around, just kill off rotation and make a yugioh style format.

Also the balance in the BW sets is just fine. Other than the rare occasional anomaly - for example it definitely looks like PCL's playtesters overlooked the Seismitoad + Hammers + LTC interaction - this format has been more or less exactly how PCL wanted it to be. For example for all the whining and crying I can remember seeing about Mewtwo EX, it's patently obvious that PCL intended for the format to be centered around Mewtwo EX, they decided it would be Mewtwo's time to shine and so it was. Numerous cards were released that could deal with Mewtwo EX in various ways, especially via attacks that threw away a lot of energy or were just really cost efficient, which prevented people from actually building explicitly Mewtwo-CENTRIC decks, but still ensured that the card would be basically everywhere.

This is the problem though. BW was not balanced. It might have been the most unbalanced format out there and will end with constant Item lock. Mewtwo EX turned the format into a format where you needed it to be competitive or you lost, since most Pokemon did not have the health to deal with it. It was so bad they had to make a new rule not allowing the player going first from attack. It also created Pokemon that can do massive damage for very little energy, which is also imbalanced. BW did nothing good for the game but make pretty cards.

I... I really don't get you. So first you say

The only action for LTC was ban because not only are Trainers powerful but so are Pokemon.

But then you say I don't think LTC is completely unhealthy followed by printing a card that completely recycles a deck is never a good idea.

Also, VS seeker is a healthy card for the format followed by we could put things like VS seeker to 1 per deck.

So which is it? Is LTC healthy or is it never a good idea? And why should we attempt to keep a card that is "never a good idea" where the "only action is ban" by limiting a "healthy card" like VS Seeker to 1?

Whats hard to understand? LTC was banned because of all the powerful cards that exist. Most of these cards exist through BW and expanded. Without things like hammers, lasers and these other common cards, LTC becomes less powerful, because you cant recycle laser, you cant recycle hammer and these other cards. Its not as bad for the game in a XY On format since a lot of the problematic cards will be gone BUT extended is still a thing. If extended will stick around, which is something I don’t want, then I see nothing wrong with the LTC ban.

A card at one per deck can be healthy for the format but completely bad at 4. VS Seeker is one of those card. Imagine if players could have 4 ace specs in their deck without the 1 per deck rule? It would be chaos. 4 Shaymin EX per deck is not a good idea so why not limit it to 1 or 2 per deck? The new Ray EX’s as well. Toad wont be as much of a problem at 1 per deck but is overpowered at 4.

By rule of any game, you don’t want to make a resource that recycles all resources. Its just bad design. If the game wants to keep it, then a limit on the card is the next best thing. Putting a card at one per deck is almost as good as a ban unless the card would still be completely unhealthy at 1.

Okay first of all your idea for LTC text makes no sense at all. What does it do when you play it? You designed a Supporter that you never actually want to PLAY because its effect triggers from the discard pile but when you play it it goes to the Lost Zone? Because that's what it reads like. Also that would be a horrible errata because it doesn't look anything like the original effect at all. At that point you just design a new card.

You play the card for no effect at all, since you’re allowed to do so. Whats wrong with playing a card for no effect? Many players do all the time. You can play it, if you cant discard it through another card effect. It wont go the the lost zone if you play it because you cant activate the effect. My wording on the card is extremely basic just for concept but would read more like “If this card is in your discard pile and you would lose the game due to having 0 cards in your deck at the start of your turn, you don’t lose the game and continue the game as normal. If you activate this card effect from your discard pile, place this card into the Lost Zone”

I think this is what the card should have been in the first place, a way to prevent a loss from decking. Rather than ban the card, which a lot of players are against for some reason, change the effect of it and I feel the effect is still in the spirit of the card and reprint the card so all copies are useable, Its not the first time a cards effect has been completely change, making It a new card all together.

The DISCARD PILE should be able to prevent abuse of powerful cards. Pokemon has historically not had that much strong discard pile recursion. Usually you have to 'pay' for good discard recursion in some way - either by throwing away more resources (Item Finder/Junk Arm/Dowsing Machine), by using an attack that doesn't deal damage (Sableye's Junk Hunt, I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of...), or by playing an inefficient card and giving up stronger effects (Plasma Triad).

I agree with you on that, it “should” be able to prevent abuse but it doesn’t. The history of the game has discard pile abuse so TCGs invented “removed from play” as a way to make the abuse of powerful cards even harder. Cost in Pokemon is almost free. When has anyone had a hard time paying the “cost” of Ultra Ball, Junk Arm and related cards? Cost is just as meaningless as the discard pile is at preventing abuse.

The return of the Lost Zone, as well as disruption cards for it (similar to Soul Release in Yugioh) can be made to “Lost Zone” cards in the discard pile.

Also the very concept of the Lost Zone gets undermined over time because eventually there will be ways to manipulate or retrieve cards in the Lost Zone. Using Yugioh as an example of why the Lost Zone is a good mechanic is horrid. A lot of the most abusive Yugioh decks historically have been ones that abuse the RFG mechanic pretty hard and there was at one point an entire archetype that was basically good because it could counter RFG shenanigans (Gravekeepers)

This is why I like the LTC ban because for the first time in a long time, the designers are looking at the game and removing problematic cards. LTC would not be my first pick but Im not against it. The Lost Zone in Pokemon can be better and act as a place that cards can go. RFG in yugioh is just a second dicard pile but doesn’t have to be that way in Pokemon and can be a really good tool for players. You can keep cards in Night Match out of reach, reducing damage output or keep from getting blown up by G Booster.

...so why do you suggest erratas if you feel it's worse than banning it? You make no sense here.

I’m not suggesting an errata. A ban on a card is almost better but when you are changing a card effect because its broken it just bad for the game and rewards bad card design. LTC was printed as intended and does not meet what an errata is supposed to be. This is just a hard nerf for the card, but would allow it to still do what the card was designed to do.

 

[tutti]

I think the main problem with your idea is that it's far too complicated, and you're putting a persistent effect on a card type - Trainer - that's better suited to effect a game state change and then be done. If you want to "save" LTC, go for a different instantaneous effect; if you want a persistent effect that protects you from decking out, use a Stadium or an Ability.

Come to think of it, you could do something interesting with it as an Ability:

Ability: Trump Card
At any time between turns, if there are no cards in your deck, you may shuffle 5 basic Energy cards from your discard pile into your deck. If you do, Knock Out this Pokémon.

It's limited to basic Energies to reduce the potential for abuse. The KO effect gives up a Prize card (a usually irrecoverable cost) and also removes the Pokémon from play to make it harder to reuse. It only buys you a few turns. And finally, it can be countered by anything that shuts off abilities. LTC had a tiny cost (your supporter for the turn) for what it did, and had none of the other drawbacks.

 

[Tagrineth]

I made the Yugioh comparison because in yugioh, powerful cards are restricted instead of being the max (3 per deck). Yugioh also doesn't have the sheer draw power Pokemon has. The fact you "can" most of your deck in one turn in Pokemon tips the 3 card, 40 deck comparison to Yugioh. In Pokemon, you start with a 47 card deck in most cases with a 7 card hand. My Yugioh deck is 46 cards for example just because of its build but only 1 card in the deck allows me to draw versus the at least 9 cards in Pokemon that let you draw for 6 plus.

A lot of cards are too powerful in Pokemon. Laser, hammers, max potions, ace specs, over powered Pokemon, etc and other than the ace specs, you can play 4 of all of them and most decks now are completely over dominate. LTC is a good bad because of all the other powerful cards you can recycle.

The simple and easy counter argument to basically your entire argument is that most decks don't even run very many 4-ofs and usually only run 4-ofs for consistency. Also if you're running a 46 card deck in yugioh you probably suck at yugioh.

Also allowing the BW sets to exist so long into the XY sets warped what XY could have been and as a result, we still have powerful pokemon and trainer. The rotation BW did have was made useless because most of the cards were reprinted and still exist in the format.

Legendary Treasures did indeed screw up the BW rotation somewhat, but whatever. It's still not as bad as the outright non-rotation, and the cards that DID get removed from the format did change things a lot (notably Sableye and Eelektrik).

Thats the thing though, people "can't" let go and this is proven by the LTC ban. A lot of cards that existed early BW "still" exist in the format today through massive reprints. The only game changing cards not reprinted were Klingklang BW, Sableye and Dark Patch BUT they still exist in expanded. Darkrai EX (The same one) is still around. Mewto EX is still around and its been years. The rotation failed to do what is was supposed to do and if they want to reprint everything to make popular cards around, just kill off rotation and make a yugioh style format.

Well they have to let go. Mewtwo EX and Darkrai EX are still around but barely see play anymore. You also missed Eelektrik and Rayquaza EX DRX getting rotatoed which was very significant. Those few cards alone made a big difference in the overall format that got amplified once Seismitoad got big (and was basically Mewtwo's downfall as far as I can see).

This is the problem though. BW was not balanced. It might have been the most unbalanced format out there and will end with constant Item lock. Mewtwo EX turned the format into a format where you needed it to be competitive or you lost, since most Pokemon did not have the health to deal with it. It was so bad they had to make a new rule not allowing the player going first from attack. It also created Pokemon that can do massive damage for very little energy, which is also imbalanced. BW did nothing good for the game but make pretty cards.

Stop right there LOL. "Most unbalanced format"? What? You've been around almost as long as I have. MetaNite, Blissey MT, and Gallade SW would like to pull you aside and have a word with you. Or how about the LuxChomp-and-Gyarados format? You wanna talk about unbalanced formats let's talk about THOSE. Mewtwo EX being in virtually every deck does not mean an unbalanced format, it just means Mewtwo EX is really really good. Also Mewtwo EX was FAR FAR FAR from being the reason for the rule not allowing the first turn player to attack. Turn 1 donks have existed since BASE SET. And pokemon that do massive damage for little energy have been around for ages. Most of DP was defined by low cost attackers too. It's all the same just with a different paint job.

Whats hard to understand? LTC was banned because of all the powerful cards that exist. Most of these cards exist through BW and expanded. Without things like hammers, lasers and these other common cards, LTC becomes less powerful, because you cant recycle laser, you cant recycle hammer and these other cards. Its not as bad for the game in a XY On format since a lot of the problematic cards will be gone BUT extended is still a thing. If extended will stick around, which is something I don’t want, then I see nothing wrong with the LTC ban.

What was hard to understand was your double speak because you completely failed at getting your point across, in spectacular fashion I might add.

In XY-on you still have Enhanced Hammer, Flare Grunt, DCE, Super Scoop Up, Robo Substitute, the Flare Tools... plenty of resources that LTC recursion makes "too good". Even in XY-on standard LTC would be super strong. Granted the abuse case of Crushing Hammer spam would be gone, and that's the #1 reason LTC is getting banned outright... but to say it would be fine in XY on is foolish.

A card at one per deck can be healthy for the format but completely bad at 4. VS Seeker is one of those card. Imagine if players could have 4 ace specs in their deck without the 1 per deck rule? It would be chaos. 4 Shaymin EX per deck is not a good idea so why not limit it to 1 or 2 per deck? The new Ray EX’s as well. Toad wont be as much of a problem at 1 per deck but is overpowered at 4.

Especially with LTC banned, VERRRRRY few decks will run more than 2 Shaymin EX. It's risky to start with even with a DCE to bounce it with its attack (which of course you can't do if you go first!). VS Seeker used to be a card you'd only run 1-2 of in decks because you didn't want to draw it too early in the game. Its potency right now is mostly due to the raw power of the Supporters it can pick up. Juniper/Sycamore didn't exist the last time VS Seeker was in the format, for example, nor did a card like Lysandre. But even then, that's still a symptom of the power of our current supporters and doesn't reflect upon the power level of VS Seeker itself. Especially in a world where Item Lock is a very real and present strategy, leaning too hard on VS Seeker can backfire too, and with the new Vileplume coming, I think abuse of VS Seeker will get curbed naturally by the format itself shifting rather than requiring an idiotic heavy-handed restriction.

Also, Ace Specs were outright designed to be one per deck. I can definitely imagine a format where players could have 4 ace specs. The Junk Arm format was crazy, but that format also had obscenely strong pokemon and even better Items than we have right now (e.g. Pokemon Catcher prenerf). Computer Search was mega staple in the early days. Etc. But a more direct example of an Ace Spec clearly designed to be a 1-of is Scoop Up Cyclone. We've had SSU for many many years on a coin flip. LTC also undermines the idea of Ace Specs being super powerful effects you get to use once. Fun times.

By rule of any game, you don’t want to make a resource that recycles all resources. Its just bad design. If the game wants to keep it, then a limit on the card is the next best thing. Putting a card at one per deck is almost as good as a ban unless the card would still be completely unhealthy at 1.

Well... yeah. Obviously making something that recycles all resources was not the best idea PCL has ever had. It was fun while it lasted though. But limiting LTC to 1 wouldn't do anything because Pal Pad and VS Seeker.

You play the card for no effect at all, since you’re allowed to do so. Whats wrong with playing a card for no effect? Many players do all the time. You can play it, if you cant discard it through another card effect. It wont go the the lost zone if you play it because you cant activate the effect. My wording on the card is extremely basic just for concept but would read more like “If this card is in your discard pile and you would lose the game due to having 0 cards in your deck at the start of your turn, you don’t lose the game and continue the game as normal. If you activate this card effect from your discard pile, place this card into the Lost Zone”

I think this is what the card should have been in the first place, a way to prevent a loss from decking. Rather than ban the card, which a lot of players are against for some reason, change the effect of it and I feel the effect is still in the spirit of the card and reprint the card so all copies are useable, Its not the first time a cards effect has been completely change, making It a new card all together.

I am not even going to touch how impossibly stupid this is.

I agree with you on that, it “should” be able to prevent abuse but it doesn’t. The history of the game has discard pile abuse so TCGs invented “removed from play” as a way to make the abuse of powerful cards even harder. Cost in Pokemon is almost free. When has anyone had a hard time paying the “cost” of Ultra Ball, Junk Arm and related cards? Cost is just as meaningless as the discard pile is at preventing abuse.

The return of the Lost Zone, as well as disruption cards for it (similar to Soul Release in Yugioh) can be made to “Lost Zone” cards in the discard pile.

A lot of people have trouble paying the cost of Ultra Ball and Junk Arm etc. Skilled players learn to work around or just power through the costs. But I've had a few games I've won because I had the temperance to resist playing an Ultra Ball for a turn or two to avoid discarding something I knew I'd need later.

Also would you quit referencing Yugioh for lost zone mechanics? That game is literally the worst possible example to talk about RFG mechanics. RFG might as well be a second discard pile to some decks in that laughable excuse for a game. Also, the irony of attacking Pokemon for having meaningful costs while comparing it to Yugioh.

This is why I like the LTC ban because for the first time in a long time, the designers are looking at the game and removing problematic cards. LTC would not be my first pick but Im not against it. The Lost Zone in Pokemon can be better and act as a place that cards can go. RFG in yugioh is just a second dicard pile but doesn’t have to be that way in Pokemon and can be a really good tool for players. You can keep cards in Night Match out of reach, reducing damage output or keep from getting blown up by G Booster.

Oh good, so you ARE at least aware that comparing RFG mechanics to Yugioh is stupid.

I’m not suggesting an errata. A ban on a card is almost better but when you are changing a card effect because its broken it just bad for the game and rewards bad card design. LTC was printed as intended and does not meet what an errata is supposed to be. This is just a hard nerf for the card, but would allow it to still do what the card was designed to do.

Glad you realise how fruitless even entertaining the idea of an errata is.

 

[vaporeon]

Sorry for taking so long, was having net issues the last 2 days

The simple and easy counter argument to basically your entire argument is that most decks don't even run very many 4-ofs and usually only run 4-ofs for consistency. Also if you're running a 46 card deck in yugioh you probably suck at yugioh.

That’s the things though, not all decks in Yugioh need 3 ofs as well. Most decks run 1 or 2 copies of a card because its all it needs but not one single deck in Pokemon needs 4 Shaymin EX. Not one single deck needs 4 HTLs. Most decks need 4 Ultra Balls. See the difference here? My Yugioh deck runs 46 cards because I needs to. Sucking would be if my deck had no consistency at all and looked like my first deck. I do play competitively.

Legendary Treasures did indeed screw up the BW rotation somewhat, but whatever. It's still not as bad as the outright non-rotation, and the cards that DID get removed from the format did change things a lot (notably Sableye and Eelektrik).

The change wasn’t big enough. The point of a rotation is to change the format completely. They pretty much said you cant use Sableye, Dark Patch and Eelektrik. The decks stayed the same. Sure the format was a bit better without Dark patch but not much was done, since everything else was reprinted.

Well they have to let go. Mewtwo EX and Darkrai EX are still around but barely see play anymore. You also missed Eelektrik and Rayquaza EX DRX getting rotatoed which was very significant. Those few cards alone made a big difference in the overall format that got amplified once Seismitoad got big (and was basically Mewtwo's downfall as far as I can see).

I can’t all cards but these cards are still around. Mewtwo EX became Yveltal EX and Mewtwo EX gets new life as Lugia EX. The effect has been around too long and needs to go, just like trainer lock.

Stop right there LOL. "Most unbalanced format"? What? You've been around almost as long as I have. MetaNite, Blissey MT, and Gallade SW would like to pull you aside and have a word with you. Or how about the LuxChomp-and-Gyarados format? You wanna talk about unbalanced formats let's talk about THOSE. Mewtwo EX being in virtually every deck does not mean an unbalanced format, it just means Mewtwo EX is really really good. Also Mewtwo EX was FAR FAR FAR from being the reason for the rule not allowing the first turn player to attack. Turn 1 donks have existed since BASE SET. And pokemon that do massive damage for little energy have been around for ages. Most of DP was defined by low cost attackers too. It's all the same just with a different paint job.

I can say it was and others may disagree. I did not have issues with MetaNite. Blissey was not fun to play but I could beat it. GG was also not a problem for me. LuxChomp and Gyarados were part of one of the most skillful formats. Those formats, when I played them were decently balanced and fun. Cards now are completely unbalanced. Not saying other formats did not have problems because they did but BW was the worst of it because TPC did not learn from past mistakes. Donks did happen but I don’t remember them happening. I don’t ever recall when my Articuno ex was donkedn. I do recall when my Articuno EX was donked. Many times in fact.

What was hard to understand was your double speak because you completely failed at getting your point across, in spectacular fashion I might add.

I don’t think so. LTC is not as powerful without all the overpowered trainers and Pokemon with the BW format. If expanded is going to stick around, then the LTC ban is good. If card into the XY series are not as powerful, same with Pokemon, then LTC might not be bad. If cards are restricted to 1 or 2 per deck (the good ones) LTC is not as powerful. LTC can be good but if the game continues as is, then it needs to go.

In XY-on you still have Enhanced Hammer, Flare Grunt, DCE, Super Scoop Up, Robo Substitute, the Flare Tools... plenty of resources that LTC recursion makes "too good". Even in XY-on standard LTC would be super strong. Granted the abuse case of Crushing Hammer spam would be gone, and that's the #1 reason LTC is getting banned outright... but to say it would be fine in XY on is foolish.

Disruption in general is too good and almost unstoppable. If it continues and signs show it will, LTC getting the boot is a good play. The LTC ban means we may see other bans and or restriction to make the game healthy.
I also would not say foolish because with bans and restrictions, we can see problematic cards removed from the format. LTC is still really good but wont be as good as it is now without all the offending cards.

Especially with LTC banned, VERRRRRY few decks will run more than 2 Shaymin EX. It's risky to start with even with a DCE to bounce it with its attack (which of course you can't do if you go first!). VS Seeker used to be a card you'd only run 1-2 of in decks because you didn't want to draw it too early in the game. Its potency right now is mostly due to the raw power of the Supporters it can pick up. Juniper/Sycamore didn't exist the last time VS Seeker was in the format, for example, nor did a card like Lysandre. But even then, that's still a symptom of the power of our current supporters and doesn't reflect upon the power level of VS Seeker itself. Especially in a world where Item Lock is a very real and present strategy, leaning too hard on VS Seeker can backfire too, and with the new Vileplume coming, I think abuse of VS Seeker will get curbed naturally by the format itself shifting rather than requiring an idiotic heavy-handed restriction.

The game right now promotes bad deck building. LTC did not start this but allows it to continue. People play 4 copies of these cards because its too good. Its always a good idea to fix a format with heavy item use with more item lock right? How has that been working out for the health of the game?

Also, Ace Specs were outright designed to be one per deck. I can definitely imagine a format where players could have 4 ace specs. The Junk Arm format was crazy, but that format also had obscenely strong pokemon and even better Items than we have right now (e.g. Pokemon Catcher prenerf). Computer Search was mega staple in the early days. Etc. But a more direct example of an Ace Spec clearly designed to be a 1-of is Scoop Up Cyclone. We've had SSU for many many years on a coin flip. LTC also undermines the idea of Ace Specs being super powerful effects you get to use once. Fun times.

Why make a new mechanic when you can just restrict the card to 1 per deck?

Well... yeah. Obviously making something that recycles all resources was not the best idea PCL has ever had. It was fun while it lasted though. But limiting LTC to 1 wouldn't do anything because Pal Pad and VS Seeker.

This is why banning LTC was the best possible option. Restricting other cards to 1 can help prevent abuse of other powerful cards.

I am not even going to touch how impossibly stupid this is.

Why is it stupid? Just because you say so does not make it so. What is stupid is to call something stupid and not provide a better alternative.

A lot of people have trouble paying the cost of Ultra Ball and Junk Arm etc. Skilled players learn to work around or just power through the costs. But I've had a few games I've won because I had the temperance to resist playing an Ultra Ball for a turn or two to avoid discarding something I knew I'd need later.[/QUOTE/
I have too as well but in most cases, there is never a situation that comes up where a players needs to make a life or death choice when choosing what to discard.

Also would you quit referencing Yugioh for lost zone mechanics? That game is literally the worst possible example to talk about RFG mechanics. RFG might as well be a second discard pile to some decks in that laughable excuse for a game. Also, the irony of attacking Pokemon for having meaningful costs while comparing it to Yugioh.

Yugioh is the easiest game to compare. I can just reference MTG but a RFG is a RFG no matter the game.

Oh good, so you ARE at least aware that comparing RFG mechanics to Yugioh is stupid.

Not stupid but not the best but a RFG is still a RFG, since not all decks can abuse it.

Glad you realise how fruitless even entertaining the idea of an errata is.

Well, I think of erratas as a way to fix a card if the card was printed with incorrect text, a translation error or error in understanding.

 

[Tagrineth]

I can say it was and others may disagree. I did not have issues with MetaNite. Blissey was not fun to play but I could beat it. GG was also not a problem for me.

This is the only thing I'll respond to now, and I've said this before because we've had this discussion before

If you had no issues beating all those decks why are you not a 5 time world champion? Put your money where your mouth is some time. GG literally dominated an entire season and was by far the most dominant deck this game has ever seen, only barely trumping MetaNite that got suckerpunched by Infernape's release but dominated the crap out of everything else until Infernape came out. GG even had the audacity to survive a rotation that SHOULD have curbed its power. You've said many times that the pile-of-meta-decks was easily defeated, but if that was really the case WHY DID THESE DECKS DOMINATE SO HARD? Are you literally saying you know better than 99% of the Pokemon player base?

No, I think you have no clue at all what you're talking about and never have.

That is all. Good day sir.

 

[vaporeon]

This is the only thing I'll respond to now, and I've said this before because we've had this discussion before

If you had no issues beating all those decks why are you not a 5 time world champion? Put your money where your mouth is some time. GG literally dominated an entire season and was by far the most dominant deck this game has ever seen, only barely trumping MetaNite that got suckerpunched by Infernape's release but dominated the crap out of everything else until Infernape came out. GG even had the audacity to survive a rotation that SHOULD have curbed its power. You've said many times that the pile-of-meta-decks was easily defeated, but if that was really the case WHY DID THESE DECKS DOMINATE SO HARD? Are you literally saying you know better than 99% of the Pokemon player base?

No, I think you have no clue at all what you're talking about and never have.

That is all. Good day sir.

Just because I dont have a problem beating a deck does not mean I should have been what you claim because like I said last time, I don't have the opportunity to play in every event or even the means to travel to them. You seem to have a personal issue with GG so I dont know if this is bias or what on your end. GG gave me no issue because my deck did not rely on poke-powers and had a degree of healing which let me deal with the damage. I understand you were playing the same deck and had to deal with weakness but I had no such issue. I had no issue with the deck but things can still dominate when everyone is playing them.

I also don't know more than the rest of the player base but if everyone insist on playing a deck with all the attackers weak to the decks main psychic attacker then its clear the player who goes first will win in most cases or you can do what I did and use another deck and find what works for you but please dont sit here and belittle my accomplishments because you have no idea how I did them. Am I the better player? I could care less but I hear people like me do well at changing the world.