Casual Rules vs Competitive Rules?

[Ignatious]

First let me introduce myself. My name is Austin Reed and I've been playing this game since its release here in America. I'm not a well known player, I attribute this to my constant poor showing at nationals. Regardless, I have top 4ed worlds (seniors), top 8ed worlds (masters), top 8ed every regional I've played in masters (6 total), and won various state and city championships. I don't mean to brag, in fact I don't believe I even have the right to; I'd just like to show that I am at least somewhat good at this game.

Now let me get on to the point.

I've been doing a lot of testing with the new BW - on format. I've testing all kinds of different decks, including the top decks in Japan and my own ideas. Regardless of what deck I play, and regardless of who I play against there seems to be one single determining factor that decides over 50% of these games:

The player that draws a stream supporters while his/her opponent draws only 1 or less will inevitably win the game.

The obvious response is simple. Run more supporters of course. Believe me I've tried. I'm up to 16 supporters in my Garchomp/Alteria deck, and 16 supporters in Basic rush. 15 in everything else, yet the supportets still decide most games. This up coming format is much more supporter reliant than the past, and here's a few reasons why;

1. No Smeargle/Cleffa/Chatot. For years now, if you opened poorly, you could at the very least search out a basic, pay the 1 energy to retreat your active basic, and finish your turn with a new hand. In BW - on, this option does not exist.

2. No Junk Arm. Believe me, I'm glad that Junk Arm + Catcher is gone. I do feel, however, that combinations such as Junk Arm + Random Receiver are not only incredible, but necessary. Without Junk Arm, hitting a draw card becomes much less likely.

3. Generally weak supporters. Take the above statistics for example; 15 cards from a 60 card deck is 25% supporters, or 1 in every 4 cards (please note that I do understand that this ratio changes throughout the course of a game). Now look at some of our supporter options. Cheren draws a clean 3 cards. Add your next top deck and you have 4 new cards before playing a new supporter. Statistically this is perfect, that's the exact ratio for supporters vs cards in deck. The obvious truth is, however, that many times a supporter simply won't be drawn. Bianca nets an average of 3 cards. N can draw as many as 6, but as few as 1. The only reliable draw card we have is Juniper.

This is an issue for any player that wants to take this game seriously. This is an issue for any player that wants to be compeitive. By directly "forcing" a player to lose a game by having the wrong set of cards on the top of their deck this game takes the result of the said game out of the players' hands. Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy a portion of luck in my games, and I definitely understand the need for it. I am only voicing this now because the amount of the luck factor has risen beyond the amount that I find reasonable.

I have thought of many many many many rules, erratas, solutions, etc to make decks more consistant and put the games back into the hands of the players. I realized of course, that my thoughts were futile. Organized play won't even fix something as simple as the first turn rule in favor of a more skill based game. It's quite clear that currently Pokemon as a game values Simplicity over Legitimacy. I disagree with this, but that's when I thought of a possible way to get both.

Have a seperate set of rules for casual play and competitive play

If what I mean isn't clear allow me to explain. In the starter decks that first explain how the game is played the rules that are listed will be the simple version of the game; the version we are playing now. Online there would be a link to the official competivie rule set.

The new players would play simply. Tournaments would be played legitimately.

An issue I see many people thinking of right away would be the transaction period between simplicity and legitimacy. Coming from a player that has seen many come into this game, I can say that showing up to a league/tournament or going online to do research is the first step in beoming a competitive player. I can also say that players that take this first step in becoming competetive, are ready for a little complexity (on average of course).

Fixing the first turn rule could actually be a reality. The donking mechanic could be fixed. We could add optional mulligans. We could add any of the many many many solutions I've thought of (I'm positive other players have contemplated this as well) to the supporter problem.

What are some takes you have as you think of this possiblility? Is there a perspective I am missing? Would you overall agree or disagree with my proposed idea?

Please don't spam me with "why bother" or "get over it" posts. Please.

I apologize for any spelling/gramatical mistakes. It's 5 am and I have yet to hit the sheets.

 

[deashira]

I would really like to see a new rule to balance out first turns. I think it would be great if you simply couldn't attack on your first turn. Player One would still have the first chance to attack, but at least Player Two would be able to prepare.

However, I don't think having two official sets of rules is a good idea. That could easily create a lot of confusion. You can always test and play with unofficial rules in your own circles, though.

As for the supporter issue, I mostly disagree. Any card game is luck-based, but Pokemon is probably the least luck-based that I've ever played (except Rage, maybe). No game I've played has had as much search as this one. You can only have four copies of any given card (except basic energy and the upcoming ace specs) but you can build your deck to have a far better chance of drawing into one. For example, I'm working on a BW-on deck with a dozen Pokemon. Ten of them are searchable by Heavy Ball. I have a lesser chance of drawing any particular pokemon, but each time I draw a Heavy Ball I can get exactly what I need AND thin my deck by one card, improving the chance I'll draw more stuff I need. Random Receiver work the same way for supporters.

Now, the BW-on format has weaker supporter options than the current format, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It slows down the game and may actually give less of an advantage to the player who draws into a supporter vs the player who does not. I have a deck that uses only Professor Oak's New Theory, Professor Juniper and some Random Receivers. I have had games where I played out my hand, drew a whole new hand, played it out and then started my next turn with another fresh hand. With a first turn random receiver and junk arm or Sableye you are almost guaranteed a supporter whenever you need one. Professor Juniper will still be a power house in BW-on, but most decks will only have four chances to use it. Less if a copy is prized or you happen to draw multiple in the same hand.

I wonder if you may be playing too many supporters. The more you play the greater chance you draw into them, but that's not always a good thing. Just today I played a Cheren and drew into two more supporters. That only left me with one extra card I could actually use that turn. That means there's no net gain (especially since I ended up using Professor Juniper the next turn). Try playing with fewer, more targeted supporters. I don't think any supporter is good in every deck. Even Professor Oak's New Theory didn't make the cut for my Accelgor deck (every card shuffled back into my deck decreased my chances of drawing DCE). If you find yourself constantly emptying your hand, play Bianca. If you often find yourself holding on to cards for next turn, play Cheren instead.

RM

 

[NoPoke]

...Organized play won't even fix something as simple as the first turn rule in favor of a more skill based game....

A detail but an important one is that Organised Play have exactly ZERO say on the first turn rule. They won't be able to comment, but I'm sure they would change it in an instant given the chance.

 

[Otaku]

On the subject of Supporters in BW-On:

It is taking some getting used to, but I have to remind myself the main difference between what we have and what were some of the best formats in the game? One shuffle and draw card (and a variable one at that), and the straight draw cards we have all come with appropriate drawbacks... unlike Steven's Advice. :wink:

I've been testing BW-On decks and my only real problem is my opponent's uncanny ability to N when I've got a great hand. :lol: Kidding aside, I do occasionally encounter hiccups... but the better I've made the deck, the better I do. I am usually running about twelve supporters, and often no Random Receivers.

On the subject of "Basic" and "Advanced" Rules:

This I could almost get behind, except the basic rules are what they have already sometimes done; basically tell people to ignore all but the most basic text on the card. So Basic rules would be for extremely young/new players, where "Flip a coin. Blah blah blah." is too complex (let alone things like variable Weakness/Resistance).

On the subject of balancing the first turn of the game:

At least one method for balancing first turn is purely a matter of card design: don't make cards that can attack for damage on a players first turn. Instead give the appropriate Pokemon attacks that set-up or disrupt first turn. This requires avoiding excess Energy acceleration as well, since we have some examples of how Energy acceleration can ruin this quite easily. Tornadus EX couldn't attack first turn without Double Colorless Energy (or a similar trick). Zekrom shouldn't have been able to attack first turn but we had Pachirisu and Shaymin to enable the combo.

I'll be using "we" even though it is "them" (TPC) in the following, just because I feel like the community is so involved... and I noticed I'd done it when I was mostly done with this post.

The real key to such an approach working is to then make sure the "end Stage" of an Evolution line are all on equal footing. A Basic Pokemon that doesn't Evolve ends up with similar stats to a Stage 1 Pokemon that doesn't further Evolve or a fully Evolved Stage 2 Pokemon. Damage output may be similar as well, but certain effects (likely mostly in the form of Abilities) only show up on Evolutions, simply because the "Ability" ends up being broken showing up first turn, but is fine by a player's third turn.

Lower Stages become useful because

a) we have given them at least one turn to be used for set-up
b) we build them by "subtracting" from the fully Evolved form
c) we build them so that the lower Stages support and enhance the Evolution
d) we don't build Basic Pokemon as "islands" unto themselves.

So using this model, if we have a Moltres and a Charizard, adjusting for their actual video game stats they'll otherwise end up with similar or even identical HP, Weakness, Resistance, and Retreat Cost. Damage output from their "big" attacks would likely be similar, and said attacks would have similar costs.

The differenceswould be a matter of Charmander, Charmeleon, and Moltres smaller attack or Ability and Charizard's smaller attack or Ability. Charmander should be a solid set-up Pokemon in general, or very good specifically for Charizard. Charmeleon allows a weaker but earlier assault than Evolving to Charizard, or can help set-up for Charizard. Charizard can get access to an inexpensive attack since it isn't going to be in play first turn, as well as more potent Powers or attack effects.

Moltres on the other hand will enjoy being a Basic Pokemon, but it won't be so independent as many modern big, Basic Pokemon are. If it has a single Energy attack, it would be pretty weak and mostly a place holder, like inflicting automatic burn for (C). We would not give it an attack or Ability to quickly power itself up, or to go on the offensive right away. The advantage of running it is that it takes less space than a Stage 2 (but still is almost as strong an attacker), and the weakness is it doesn't do much without time to set-up. Even in a mono-basic deck you'd want a Basic that sets up, a Basic that attacks well, and a basic that is a cleaner... the Stage 2 deck does that with its entire line (though will need a few extra slots at least since you still have more Pokemon).

 

[deashira]

Sorry, I've got a simple question: what is a "cleaner"?

RM

 

[Otaku]

Sorry, I wasn't clear and was using (possibly outdated) jargon.

Long ago, when the game was slower, a Pokemon might be an opener, and have either an inexpensive offensive attack or a useful set-up or disruption attack to use on the opponent. You then would bring up your main attacker. Lastly, you'd have a "cleaner", who could often double as an offensive opener: this was a good, reliable back up attacker for when your main attacker wouldn't do. I believe right now Terrakion would fit the term... regardless of how it was worked into the deck (as long as it wasn't a main attacker, like in Quad Terrakion).

 

[PokePop]

Generally speaking, the "cleaner" took a bit of time to evolve and/or power up (an expensive attack), but once you got it into play, it would "sweep" away your opponent's Pokemon.

 

[Simwar]

I agree that the game could have a much better starting mechanic.
I think the mulligan mechanic used for Magic could fit well into Pokémon. You have the option do decide to mulligan yourself, however you must draw one card less each time you choose to.
Also I really think they should add the old rules again, where the one to start the game couldn't play trainers. It gave the starting person a disadvantage, but he would still be the first person to evolve, now that you can't use rare candy first turn, and he would also be the first person to attach energy.

As for the supporter lines I think 15 is a bit over the edge. Like deashire pointed out, it becomes a problem if you have too many supporters in your hand.
Often Juniper seems to be the best card to play because it gives the most cards, but with 25% being supporters, you might have to throw out a lot of them. I'd rather run some more Pokémon and energies, and have to throw some of them out, because I can get them back later with a super rod.
Bianca is only good if you can get a small hand before playing it, which can be hard if you have too many supporters in your hand.
So with larger hands filled with supporters you can often be forced to rely on N and Cheren.
N is mostly a good choice early game, but you don't wanna play it if your opponent has a 1-3 card hand, because then you'll mostly help them too.

11-13 supporters seems to work well for me in all my BW-on decks.
It's very rare that I can't keep the supporters running with this, and even if you don't have one in your starting hand, there's a huge chance that your opponent will play a N during the first 1-2 turns.

 

[Shen]

tl;dr the entire topic, read the OP though. I did quick search of First Ticket and found nothing, so I just wanted to point out that I think TCPi or whoever designs our cards and rules are very much aware of the situation. Personally, I think we should just go back to the way things were before BW... but in reality it has only been one season with the current first turn rules so we can't really blame them for trying something different.

Anyways... First Ticket is obviously an attempt to put more control in the players' hands when it comes to the first turn. Even the OLD first turn rules came down to a coin flip, so they were never actually in the player's hands. With first ticket, it is now more option (although still with a bit of luck involved). Still, we had Sableye SF, which I think was a step in the right direction towards giving players more options to control the first turn of the game... but then BW rules ruined it. Even with First Ticket, it still comes down to how much of your deck are you willing to sacrifice to try and go first? Granted, you won't get it every game... but statistically it should increase your chances of going first throughout the duration of a tournament. Even if First Ticket isn't worth playing in any competitive deck, I think it's great that the card designers are looking for ways to eliminate the luck factor.

Secondly I would like to point out that we almost always get something to improve a deck's consistency eventually. In HP-on we never got any real support until GE gave us Claydol. We may have a bumpy ride for a bit. Has there ever been a format where the concluding pool of sets really made the meta feel like a crapshoot? We've always gotten supportive cards at some point or another in every format, as far as I can remember,

 

[Otaku]

tl;dr the entire topic...

-_-'

As for control over who starts, eh that is another "waiting to be broken" strategy. The big problem is that unless they do something radically different, either its pretty bad or pretty great. Someone crunched the numbers, and basically maxing out on First Ticket just ups your odds of starting from 50% to about 72%, and that is when you're the only one running it.

Of course, that's just it; with a card like First Ticket your either affecting only a few decks that can fit it in or if for some reason it does become popular (such as a deck that does max it out and counts on it for a serious win, likely a donk deck) then all that has really happened is the illusion of control and people are effectively running 56 card decks. What control you have is the same you have with far too many cards; run it or suffer worse match-ups. =/

If the idea of your cards influencing how you start is "serious", we need a variety of such cards, and with different "values" of starting priority. I mean, isn't that how the Speed Stat affects the video games? You can have a fast Pokemon, but there is a chance someone has a faster one... especially if you want your opening Pokemon not to be weak in other areas. Alternatively, a cost for going first. Either way, the Pokemon with such abilities should be a bit weaker than those without.

I also wonder if they shouldn't introduce some cards with effects requiring your opponent went first, or at least enhanced if your opponent went first. I wouldn't make them completely dependent upon going second for fear of reversing the problem (you need to go second to be competitive) or having no effect at all (if it is dead weight half the time, that's bad). Probably just a slight sub-par effect if you go first, with a better-than-normal effect if you went second. Possibly tailor the effects to compensate the obvious drawbacks of going second.

Lastly, just to illustrate a point, in some games they have built in mechanics to see who goes first. I know it appeared elsewhere first, but a trick Decipher did in its Mega Man TCG was each card had a "Destiny number" printed in the corner (unless it was an oddball card that didn't actually go into your main deck). When it was time to decide who went first, each player shuffled their decks, gave the opponent the chance to cut, and revealed the top card: highest Destiny number went first. Instead of coin flips, you often would reveal (and discard) a card and use its Destiny number to determine damage done.

Please understand that the Destiny number on a card was based on the card's overall quality; cards that were overall "weaker" (including strong effects that were hard to play or simple effects that seemed a bit pricey). Sometimes you even had incentive to run a card you couldn't normally play just because your deck could manipulate the appropriate resources so you were revealing a high Destiny score for big damage!

 

[Shen]

As for control over who starts, eh that is another "waiting to be broken" strategy. The big problem is that unless they do something radically different, either its pretty bad or pretty great. Someone crunched the numbers, and basically maxing out on First Ticket just ups your odds of starting from 50% to about 72%, and that is when you're the only one running it.

Of course, that's just it; with a card like First Ticket your either affecting only a few decks that can fit it in or if for some reason it does become popular (such as a deck that does max it out and counts on it for a serious win, likely a donk deck) then all that has really happened is the illusion of control and people are effectively running 56 card decks. What control you have is the same you have with far too many cards; run it or suffer worse match-ups. =/

Right but you may also choose not to run first ticket in order to give yourself more deck space and thus the opportunity to cover more match-ups. Some decks may even adjust their strategy to go second, which is why I wish we had more "come from behind" cards like Scramble energy. Personally I think N has done a tremendous job of balancing out the first turn rules (and other luck factors, like random bad match-ups) because its naturally a comeback card in itself.

It's only an illusion of control if everyone does, in fact, run first ticket... which I'm sure many will not and just run 4 more cards in place of an increased 0 - 22% chance of going first (if that math is sound). I'm sure not every deck can even run it. Plus, I would like to point out that even if two people do play First Ticket, there is much more control in Rock-Paper-Scissors than in a coin flip.

I don't really agree that First Ticket is "abusable" because only a few decks can fit it in. If a deck cannot effectively play it, then it is a deck that deserves to go second... just as (like you said) a slower Pokemon deserves to move last in the video games. If you want to take control of the first turn you either run a deck that can play it or give up your chances to your opponent.

I agree its not the greatest solution but certainly a step in the right direction.

 

[Otaku]

I outlined a specific scenario where it was not a viable strategy to choose the extra deck space. If going first isn't enough of an advantage, than First Ticket falls flat. It is one of those cards that is either going to be huge or pretty much be binder bait. Well, on the shaky ground of my predictions holding true.

For the record, Scramble Energy was horrible for the game and come-from-behind cards are only needed to fuel decks that can "burn Prizes" for benefits (in which case it is theme support) or... well that really is the only reason to make a card function that way. If one is losing because your opponent is stomping you, it is either the inherent level of luck in the game which one needs to accept, the result of said player performing worse than his/her opponent, or a problem with game rules and/or balance. None of those warrant a card like Scramble Energy.

 

[JandPDS]

I outlined a specific scenario where it was not a viable strategy to choose the extra deck space. If going first isn't enough of an advantage, than First Ticket falls flat. It is one of those cards that is either going to be huge or pretty much be binder bait. Well, on the shaky ground of my predictions holding true.

For the record, Scramble Energy was horrible for the game and come-from-behind cards are only needed to fuel decks that can "burn Prizes" for benefits (in which case it is theme support) or... well that really is the only reason to make a card function that way. If one is losing because your opponent is stomping you, it is either the inherent level of luck in the game which one needs to accept, the result of said player performing worse than his/her opponent, or a problem with game rules and/or balance. None of those warrant a card like Scramble Energy.

Scramble was not bad for the game it was good, but it was back in the day when they did not make broken crds and leave them be. It used to be that there whenever a card became powerful they would make a counter in a latter set to deal with it. Scrable and Boost a problem, run Crystal Beach. But Japan has gotten very lazy the past 4 years and no longer developes counters to popular mechanics. So things just stay broken set after set after set until we get a rotation when new stuff becomes broken again.

 

[Otaku]

Scramble was not bad for the game it was good, but it was back in the day when they did not make broken crds and leave them be. It used to be that there whenever a card became powerful they would make a counter in a latter set to deal with it. Scrable and Boost a problem, run Crystal Beach. But Japan has gotten very lazy the past 4 years and no longer developes counters to popular mechanics. So things just stay broken set after set after set until we get a rotation when new stuff becomes broken again.

JandPDS: I called it as I experienced it. Ask yourself why a game needs "come from behind" cards? If it is the "basic" amount of luck inherent to TCGs, shouldn't one accept that this is a TCG and not a game of chess? Otherwise it comes down to game rules, card pool, and balance; if those are causing a need for "comeback cards", then those things ought to be addressed directly. Yes, that includes "extreme" levels of luck as well; while I said this wasn't chess, neither should it be a lottery.

Scramble Energy had no way of distinguishing why a player was "behind"; it didn't care if you had made a boneheaded play or had a questionable deck build and deserved to lose. It also didn't care if you were a clever player and weren't really "losing" at all, merely having given up a Prize for significant gain in other areas.

As for issues with card design, I believe you are simultaneously giving TPC too much credit and too little. :wink: There have been broken cards over the years, though you may disagree with what I call "broken". I'd say the performance has overall been consistent.

As JandPDS brought up Crystal Beach for countering Scramble Energy, let us look at that. Conceptually, we have a problem: a Stadium countering a Special Energy. You must play the Stadium down before hand and have it remain intact in order for it to counter a Special Energy card your opponent is playing; otherwise your opponent has already gotten at least one attack off taking advantage of Scramble Energy. If your opponent evened up or pulled ahead, Scramble Energy would even already be providing just :colorless:!

Now look at the timing and what was in the format; Scramble Energy debuted a year and a half before Crystal Beach. If we view Scramble Energy as a "mistake", that is a reasonable response time. If we view Crystal Beach as a planned, expected counter, that isn't good; that would be like TPC countering stuff released in Black & White our upcoming fall set.

Crystal Beach was also released into a format with many excellent Stadiums and in the same set as Windstorm. That turns Crystal Beach into an easy "plus one"; one could use Windstorm on an important Item and then nail your Stadium, often meaning they were never negatively impacted by it at all!

Crystal Beach definitely had its uses, but not as a counter just to the one or two Scramble Energy the average deck ran. It was because so many decks also ran Double Rainbow Energy and/or Holon's Pokemon, and even then I never found it that reliable a counter. Like most Energy, perhaps the best "counter" was KOing whatever the Energy was attached to or that the opponent wanted to attack it to.

 

[Shen]

Scramble energy was excellent for the game...

I argue Scramble Energy was good because you couldn't just steamroll your opponent without thinking of Scramble being played. Predicting Scramble Energies and playing accordingly completely emphasized skill. It's the same reason Steven's Advice was great for the game, you had to be careful how you played. If you have the prize lead on a novice player and you're taken by surprise by a Scramble, that's every bit your fault. I don't get what your saying. If someone plays a questionable deck and wins only because of Scramble, doesn't that make it actually a good deck?

You should take note that Scramble never just hands the losing player the win on a silver platter. Scramble was limited to evolved non-EX's. ATM Rock kept it in it's place, as well as POW! Hand Extension. Decks like Medicham tried not to take the prize lead (but always had control) to stop opponent's from using Scramble. Even more recent decks like Regigigas Lv.X, Gothitelle, and The Truth shut down come from behind cards and used them themselves by manipulating the prize lead. Also, for the record, sometimes one could not simply Windstorm a Crystal Beach. Decks like Banette EX played Houndoom, which in turn was countered by Latilock and so forth. Everything had a counter. To say Crystal Beach was counterable says nothing. That balance is what made that format so good.

It's ranked #10 in the Top 50 Pokemon Cards of All Time by Klacynski and other top players who helped with the list.

 

[Ignatious]

When scramble was first printed it was a perfectly balanced card. Many decks couldn't use it (EX), others didn't need it (accel), and there were a few counters to it (Beach, Pow!). I don't believe that scramble energy was balanced at all in the G&G format, however. It was difficult to actually pull ahead in a given game. While this may sound good, it made the gap between good and bad players somewhat smaller while also making the gap between good and bad hands smaller. I would say in that sense, its existence was awkward and it alone changed the game drastically.

If they made such a card now I'd be jumping for joy. Theoretically. I wouldn't mind having a new form of energy accel (in a sense) and it makes currently bad cards playable, which could be fun. However we currently have an evolution based deck; Garchomp. How would Scramble help that deck? It would hardly help at all. Now how playable is Garchomp? In my honest opinion, if you haven't read my other thread, Garchomp is bad. Scramble seems like it'd be a card that helped boost other evo lines up to Garchomp's level, which isn't really high.

As far as helping the player that goes second come from behind; Scramble would only be applicable to a small amount of possible decks, if what I said above is true. If the card's purpose would be to fix problems, it'd have to be ran a lot; otherwise there would still be many games playing without this card in either deck, and in those instances, there is no fix.

Scramble would be nice, but I don't think it's the solution.

 

[Otaku]

Shen: Thank you for making your case. I do not agree with it, but then again I didn't care for Stephen's Advice either (from the perspective of game balance; he was a "fun" abuse of power when legal). To clarify a point, I believe almost any card can be balanced and good for the game if it is released into the "correct" format; just because some of these cards were from a period at least some (myself included) consider the best time in Pokemon doesn't mean they were properly balanced for that format. This could also boil down to a difference in opinion of how the game 'should' play.


I am trying, and failing to keep things concise discussing in the manner I normally do, so I'll leave you with five questions; those who share your views/disagree with my own are welcome to answer as well.

1) Why is one player able to steamroll another, and how does Scramble Energy make things more fair?

2) What card(s) hand(s) the game to a player on a silver platter?

3) Shouldn't I be citing that article to support my argument? :wink: Notice that it is about "power" and not "game balance": WotC-released Neo Genesis Slowking is number 8!

4) How does Ancient Technical Machine [Rock] and Pow! Hand Extension counter Scramble Energy? (Please consider timing issues)

5) How hard was it to toss out a TecH Scramble Energy? Remember that Scramble Energy was introduced into a format with FireRed/LeafGreen Pidgeot, the one with the "Quick Search" Poké-Power that allowed a player, once per turn, to search his/her deck for a card and add it to his/her hand... and was nearly a staple card.

 

[deashira]

I just looked up scramble energy and all I can think is, it's too bad we didn't have that in the same format as Electrode Prime. lol

RM

 

[Otaku]

We did have it in the same format as Electrode ex, pre-errata Rare Candy and Rocket's Admin. Hijinks ensued.