3-1 Legend lineups make no sense.

[Dennis Hawk]

That's not what I said and you know it. There's no reason to be childish, taking something I said completely and purposefully out of context and then using it in an attempt to twist my words. I haven't disrespected you, and I expect the same in return.

I apologize if this came out as a personal offence, none was meant when referring to your post. The point was, metaphorically speaking, that after the conclusion that the world was round, a theory was made to back up that argument, thus developing the science as we know it. I've yet to see the theories for 3-1 lineup, only arguments. Would it really change anything I were to test this extensively when the logical knowledge basis is already in this thread, all out and open? Feel free to disagree and counter any conclusion noted in the first post, we can work it from there. Pointing out the advantages of 3-1 lineup would also make the discussion easier to continue.

When testing, there should be a clear goal of what you are going to prove and as a testing result, a theory of the reasons why the results come out as they are should be created. That's the basis of all scienficic research, I see no point why it wouldn't apply to the game theory of Pokémon. For example, saying that 2-2 Luxray is better than 3-1 would be something like "you get to use Bright Look more often" or "You don't need so much recovery cards to get out 2 Luxray Lv.Xs, which is all I need to win a matchup X". I've yet to see the theory why the Legend 3-1 lineup would work better than 2-2.

There are no unknown aspects in the game of Pokémon TCG as we know it. Everything can be counted. Every flip is 50% in theory, even if you get 20 heads in the row when testing. Or tails, for that matter. All testing is to be appreciated and at times generates new information, sure, but if there are some things that are to be taken as a fact - like propabilities - the things on paper should be considered prior to the testing results. Propabilities reflect on how the game works in truly random environments. Testing games - like the tournament games - are just instances taken from the theory, going better or worse, but a deck builder should do everything to get the propabilities - consistency - in the highest level possible with the 60 card slots available.

Thus 3-1 is suboptimal with the knowledge available in this thread at the moment.

 

[Sabett]

Quoted me before the edit, and I wasn't replying to your post. Sorry if you took it that way.

I think you missed the part where I said I wasn't going to try to convince you. I put it out there. Explained why it works. And then I leave it at that. It's up to you what you do with the info.

ROFLMAO you're wrong and you just don't want to admit it. "wasn't going to try to convince me"? There's nothing to convince me of. Every single time you played with a 3-1 would've ALWAYS been better with a 2-2 line, with a less chance of getting a lone legend piece prized and having to use azelf. The way you explained it worked is no different from how a 2-2 line works. There is no advantage from a 3-1 line at all.

@czech59: a 2-2 line has the advantage of drawing into them more likely, it also allows you to have 2 legends out and work up on one while the other is attacking. There's also the fact that more than often you wont' be forced to use azelf when any of your legend pieces are prized. There are advantages of running a 202 line, there are none from a 3-1 line.

That's why I said effectively. Meaning Azelf acts (in a way) as your second in case the single half is prized. The chance of both the Azelf and the single half being prized are less than 1% and that's a number any TCG player can live with. With a 2-2 you have a much greater chance of 2 of your halves being prized. Almost a 1 in 5 chance using ExoByte's numbers.

I can't believe you actually think it's a 1 in 5 chance for both of the same half to prized, but you are absolutely wrong. No matter how you twist it, the 3-1 line becomes screwed over in prizes more often than a 2-2 line. A 2-2 line needs 3 cards to be prized, a 3-1 line needs 2. So no it's not better because of the prizes, it's not better because you can use more legends. There is no advantage to running a 3-1 line whatsoever. It's not an opinion, it's not a "theory", it's a bold hard and cold fact and there's no way to skirt around it. Let's say you have 2 6 sided dice, die A has 4 sides that are blue, and die B has 3 sides that are blue, and you roll each of them 10 times. die A gives you 5 blues, and die B gives you 8 blues. Does this mean that die B has a larger chance of giving you a blue when you roll them? No, it doesn't random is random, but that doesn't change the fact that you still had a higher chance of getting a blue side when you rolled die A. Believing that die B gives you a larger chance of getting blue, is what the gambler's fallacy is. I've already mentioned this, but clearly you've completely ignored it.

That's not what I said and you know it. There's no reason to be childish, taking something I said completely and purposefully out of context and then using it in an attempt to twist my words. I haven't disrespected you, and I expect the same in return.

There's no reason to be childish and completely ignore simple logic, just because you personally found a 3-1 line to test better than a 2-2 line. You think it'll stay that way? You honestly still want to advocate that it's easier to get out legends with a 3-1 line as apposed to a 2-2 line because you tested it as such, even though I showed you how it is no different, that it's no easier or harder to get out a legend out with a 2-2 line or 3-1 line.

You've basically got two options if you really want to pursue this, you can keep on saying that a 3-1 line is better because of the reasons we've already proven are completely wrong, just because you've randomly had better results with a 3-1 line, or you can simply admit you're wrong. It's ok, I myself have fallen into the idea that a 3-1 line was better, but then dennis pointed out that was completely wrong, it's not that big of a deal, really.

 

[darthtace]

Also, as a random note, the Earth being round wasn't actually proved to be through testing. It was proved mathematically by Pythagoras using triangulation and the stars in Ancient Greece over 2500 years ago. There were also several medieval scientists who did the same thing prior to 1000 AD. Thus, yet again, math wins.

 

[Shino Bug Master]

I am all for the unconvetional attempts to improve a deck, but this isn't a new way to make a LEGEND viable or not. This sort of thing has been aviable since the beginning fo the line. What 2 cards share the relationship of Legends in that you need both to make them usable? Nothing has the exact same dependancy, but looking at it, Stage 1s are rather the same.

The only stage 1 to run a heavier line than its basic is Claydol, which was done to minimalize the odds of starting with a Baltoy while increasing the odds of getting a quick Claydol. LEGENDS have the handicap that they can't have a full line greater than 2-2, so just assume the same limitation for any Stage 1 tech you've ever played, but add that you CANNOT start with the basic. Now how exactly is this arguement different than that between running a 2-2 Mothim line (AR Burmy) or a 1-3? You can only ever have 1 in play, you have a great change of prizing your 1 basic (legend half), you rely completely on Azelf/Rescue to achieve consistant and repeated use, etc.

I don't care how much testing supports it, I would NOT run a 1-3 Mothim line with the option of running a 2-2 line. I realize this is not a perfect comparison, but with a little imagination you'll see it really is much more similair than not. I personally don't care if waynegg runs a 3-1 line and has success. More power to him, espically since he isn't hyping hsi idea. But I don't understand its justification whatsoever.

 

[Ninja]

Eh, Im not one to be speaking but i do feel it would be better to run a 3-1...

With the 3-1 its easier to pull the one thats the 3... Only by a little chance, but its a lot of a chance to pull in your starting hand... Hence I dont do math xD Thats why when ppl run 4 of a starter they want it in their starting hand... I guess thats whats happening here...

with the 1... you just use a BeBes or Luxball to get it... and then you instantly have a Legend T1/2 depends on who goes first :/

But this is only to myself... so yess... plz ignore this post

 

[Ninja]

You're still running 4 cards either way and if you draw one of the legend pieces, you can easily search for the other.

Oh ya... I completely forgot xD
That makes sense... 4 cards... you still have a chance to get either one...

Sorry, I have my blonde moments

 

[Sabett]

Oh ya... I completely forgot xD
That makes sense... 4 cards... you still have a chance to get either one...

Sorry, I have my blonde moments

LoL, don't worry I thought the exact same thing.

 

[Regis_Neo]

People use a 3-1 line? That is rather weird, I would think 2-2 would be better as well.

Also imo, Azelf can't always be a surefire answer, yes he can dig a Prized piece out, but consider:

1) He himself may rarely be prized (as most decks only run 1)
2) He's dead bench weight with no easy way to get him off
3) He's basically a free prize waiting to happen for Luxchomp decks and pretty much most others

 

[Sabett]

People use a 3-1 line? That is rather weird, I would think 2-2 would be better as well.

Also imo, Azelf can't always be a surefire answer, yes he can dig a Prized piece out, but consider:

1) He himself may rarely be prized (as most decks only run 1)
2) He's dead bench weight with no easy way to get him off
3) He's basically a free prize waiting to happen for Luxchomp decks and pretty much most others
4) He can be sprayed.

Fixd
17 17 17 17 17

 

[Ninja]

Nice one sabbett
I would scream burn to the player... but in a sportmanship way or something
In america...

 

[nalves]

I think common sense answers all your questions.

 

[vegitalian]

With no Azelf, the odds of not being to get out a legend is about:
~1 in 18 (2-2 line)
~1 in 10 (3-1 line)

If your Azelf get sprayed, you can factor those odds in. The Rescue argument makes no sense. In order to get 3 Legends out, you still need 2 Rescues. This is no different than for a 2-2 line, only that a 2-2 line could successfully play 2 Legends without a single Rescue.

There is no debate in this thread, only fact. 2-2 is superior to 3-1.

 

[Dual_Draw]

In a format where SPs with Power Spray are going to be one half of the format, with Vielplume/Tomb being the other half, why would you ever consider 3-1 when knowing Azelf being sprayed just cost you your main attacker, and rescue as your recovery.

 

[DonphanAtoZ]

This is very similar to the 3-1SP Lv. X argument. 3-1 does what it is supposed to do, but if you play 2-2 you can save yourself room by nt having to play extra recovery. I like 2-2, but 3-1 is still a possibility that isn't terrible, just not optimal.

 

[Sabett]

This is very similar to the 3-1SP Lv. X argument. 3-1 does what it is supposed to do, but if you play 2-2 you can save yourself room by nt having to play extra recovery. I like 2-2, but 3-1 is still a possibility that isn't terrible, just not optimal.

3-1 has the advantage of starting more often with an sp lv. X, for legends that isn't the case you need both. A 3-1 line for legends has no advantages in comparison to a 2-2 legend line. A 3-1 line is literally, and with no opinion put into this statement, strictly worse than running a 2-2 line.

 

[Alazor]

Ok, I've seen some decklists with a groundbreakingly looking 3-1 lineups of Legend halves. The logic behind this decision seems to be to Rescue the other half when the Legend goes down, with having a lot of the other half to be added straight from the hand by stocking them there when the Legend is still up and running.

In this post, I am to demostrate why 3-1 lineups are worse than 2-2 lineups in all aspects and should not be used in any circumstance where you actually own a 2-2 line.

1. 3-1 is prized far more often.
Think about it. People are running 2-2 Luxrays, 2-2 Garchomps and all that 2-2 stuff, just because there are things to be put in prizes. Logically, 3-1 lines have made sense due to wanting to start with the basic form of the pokémon, but now basically every Worlds Luxchomp was running 2-2 lineup. Yes, there is Azelf, but the propability for Azelf and the single Legend half being prized is far more than Azelf and 2 Legend halves.

When you mean prized, you mean prized so you can not get out a Legend without Azelf. That makes sense.

2. You don't even get to start with it.
Suppose there are decks that are running 3-1 lineups just as you would need to start with something. Well, you can't do it here. No matter which half - the 3 or the 1 - you happen to get into your starting hand, you still can't put it down to the active position or even to the bench before the game begins. This negates the advantage of a 3-1 lineup.

I'm not sure about that point, what if you put a lot of basic pokemon with free retreat, would drawing into a starting basic and one Legend Half be any different than drawing the other? It doesn't make any difference except having to play extra recovery cards to get Legends out of the discard.

3. ...and it is more impropable of drawing into it.
While having 3-1 lineup seems to increase your changes into drawing the other half, it also decreases your changes for drawing into the single copy of another half. We can demostrate this with the scenario with 2 random Legend halves getting drawn into one's hand and their compability to form a complete Legend.

3-1 line: [x1][x2][x3][o1]
2-2 line: [x1][x2][o1][o2]

When counting propabilities, see all possibilities of these cards ending up to your hand (6). These will form the following combinations.

3-1 line: 1. [x1][x2] 2. [x1][x3] 3. [x1][o1] 4. [x2][x3] 5. [x2][o1] 6. [x3][o1] = 3/6 valid combinations.
2-2 line: 1. [x1][x2] 2. [x1][o1] 3. [x1][o2] 4. [x2][o1] 5. [x2][o2] 6. [o1][o2] = 4/6 valid combinations.

Thus, when randomly drawing, in 33% of the occurrences more the 2-2 lineup provides a complete legend.

Well, maybe not 33%, because 4/6-3/6=1/6, which is 16.6%.

4. The Rescue argument
So the basis of the 3-1 lineup has been being able to rescue the half you only have one of and having your hand packed with the other half you are playing three of. Here's a counter: When you have a complete Legend in the discard pile and any half in your hand, wouldn't the Pokémon Rescue complete it anyway? Or even better - if you had 2 of the remaining Legend halves in your hand when your Legend goes down, you wouldn't even need a Rescue - you could just play the Legend halves down as a whole, not needing to trick yourself into believing that the Rescue gets you the important part of the Legend that you have most cunningly gotten in to the discard pile.

Most cunningly. The only point I see is that you cannot play 2 Legends at the same time if you are playing 3-1 and then you power it up. Do Legends take up extra bench space? What about the Lost Zone?

Same goes with all the search arguments. When you have one half in hand - doesn't even matter which half - you will always want to look for the other half. And there are no cards that can only get the lower or upper half of a Legend, they will get you the one that you need to complete it, and thus 3-1 lineup is not valid.

I don't see how that would make a difference. Pokemon Communicator and Luxury Ball still work right? Bebe's Searchwould still work for either.

Please do not play 3-1 Legends.

Replies are in red.

 

[Sabett]

Replies are in red.

I don't see where you listed any advantage 3-1 has over 2-2.

 

[Jeez]

This is very similar to the 3-1SP Lv. X argument. 3-1 does what it is supposed to do, but if you play 2-2 you can save yourself room by nt having to play extra recovery. I like 2-2, but 3-1 is still a possibility that isn't terrible, just not optimal.

I think it's not. When using 3-1 basic lv X lineup, you have the advantage at using their basic form's attacks, for example Luring Flame with Blaziken FB or Drag Off with Regigigas promo. Also it is easier to recover than 2-2 line, that's a fact, but with Legends you must have both halves and are able to only use it's own attacks.

When using Legends as a main attacker or such heavy line of it as 2-2 or 3-1, you should also use Legend Box. The odds to get a legend card with that is better with 2-2 line than 3-1 line. Therefore, I really don't see any reasons to use 3-1 lineup, if it suffers from so many disadvantages as mentioned before.

 

[waynegg]

When using Legends as a main attacker or such heavy line of it as 2-2 or 3-1, you should also use Legend Box.

Legend Box is a low percentage card unless you are willing to sacrifice bench space on Dialgas. Then you limit yourself on Uxie drops, secondary attackers, and such. If Legend Box is the whole basis of your argument, it's a moot point. There are much quicker, more dependable ways to set up a Legend, Energy acceleration and all.

 

[nnaann]

Seems like Pokemon doesn't just help juniors with their maths skills