Then guess what card pops out of their hand again next turn...
Catcher? Will it ruin the format?
- Thread starter hispidey11
- Start date
- Status
ogremarauder
New Member
^
If luck wasn't a part of this game,it would be called chess
If luck wasn't a part of this game,it would be called chess
Otaku
Active Member
What about Pokemon Reversal?
^
How did my post say anything about luck?
Scipio
New Member
Granted, but I never heard anyone complain about that back then.
What has changed in those 4 years?
Average turn 2 damage output.
Now Junk Arm is in the format (see the first post in the thread).
Gaelen1227
New Member
i run 4 catchers:lol: and i hope i will do well in leauge:thumb:
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
Well, to be fair, Catcher won't really increase donks.
As for whether 'we' were trying to avoid this . . . it isn't up to 'us'. Pretty much everything that has been released since at least DP seems to indicate that whoever decides these things (Pokemon JPN?) does want a fast game . . . Trainer Lock being the alternative.
Otaku
Active Member
Building upon what baby_mario said, something odd that occurred at a Pokemon League I used to regularly attend was that when it came to Unlimited, Slowking was rarely used, but other anti-Trainer cards (Chaos Gym and Dark Vileplume) were widely played. There was something of a gentlemen's agreement between most of the players who could build a real Mindgames focused deck (e.g. had more than 0 or 1 copies of the card) not to use it. Second one player (me ) was/is a huge Snorlax fan so I ran as good a Turbo Snorlax deck as I could design, and some of the other players would periodically try this.
So what does that mean here? Well in our micro-metagame Unlimited decks started making sure they weren't as Trainer heavy as normal, because it seemed like one in three games someone was locking down your Trainers... and their own. So I wonder if that is the idea TPC is toying with... maybe we can have potent Trainer-Items if we have several potent anti-Item cards. To the point where while not everyone (or almost everyone) feels they have to run the counter-Item cards (like Slowking and Trainers), a significant number of players will and that will achieve an odd balance.
Note, totally guessing there, and one moment I read it and it feels like I have something, the next even I think it sounds ridiculous. XD
) was/is a huge Snorlax fan so I ran as good a Turbo Snorlax deck as I could design, and some of the other players would periodically try this.So what does that mean here? Well in our micro-metagame Unlimited decks started making sure they weren't as Trainer heavy as normal, because it seemed like one in three games someone was locking down your Trainers... and their own. So I wonder if that is the idea TPC is toying with... maybe we can have potent Trainer-Items if we have several potent anti-Item cards. To the point where while not everyone (or almost everyone) feels they have to run the counter-Item cards (like Slowking and Trainers), a significant number of players will and that will achieve an odd balance.
Note, totally guessing there, and one moment I read it and it feels like I have something, the next even I think it sounds ridiculous. XD
vaporeon
Moderator
And this is the bad thing. I do agree with you on this. In OUR format, we need cards in OUR format to help OUR format. There is no reason Junk Arm should be in the same format with Catcher. We play our games differently so we need special rules if you will.
We need cards to help us out, yet we get sets based on Japans meta. I swear we need some kind of control of how we play our game because fast decks here are bad for the game when its the whole game.
---------- Post added 08/21/2011 at 05:29 PM ----------
Building upon what baby_mario said, something odd that occurred at a Pokemon League I used to regularly attend was that when it came to Unlimited, Slowking was rarely used, but other anti-Trainer cards (Chaos Gym and Dark Vileplume) were widely played. There was something of a gentlemen's agreement between most of the players who could build a real Mindgames focused deck (e.g. had more than 0 or 1 copies of the card) not to use it. Second one player (me
So what does that mean here? Well in our micro-metagame Unlimited decks started making sure they weren't as Trainer heavy as normal, because it seemed like one in three games someone was locking down your Trainers... and their own. So I wonder if that is the idea TPC is toying with... maybe we can have potent Trainer-Items if we have several potent anti-Item cards. To the point where while not everyone (or almost everyone) feels they have to run the counter-Item cards (like Slowking and Trainers), a significant number of players will and that will achieve an odd balance.
Note, totally guessing there, and one moment I read it and it feels like I have something, the next even I think it sounds ridiculous. XD
I just think preventing cards from being played is bad. Look at evolution lock decks. While they prevent you from evolving, you can get around it with Rare Candy or with playing big basics. Now, there are no real ways to get out of a trainer lock, other then playing trainer. You can use an attack but more then likely you have a heavy retreat pokemon out there but you still need to use an attack just to bate a Vileplume.
Trainer lock is way to powerful in Pokemon. In yugioh, they banned a card that prevented the use of spell cards. You Yugi players know what card I'm talking about. Maybe if you had a card that prevented some plays like pokemon search off item cards and such but to put a limit on almost 20 cards in a deck. Its like playing a basketball game when your opponents starts off with 20 points.
Rew
Active Member
If it's Vileplume, does the score start out 20-20?
If you're scared of Trainer Lock, build your deck around it.
^You're right - the Ambipom/Weavile/Slowking and similar locks such as Sharpedo as just as bad. A T2 Strip Bare combined with Slowking from my opponent when I'm going 2nd means I literally can't do anything for the rest of the game. Not exactly promoting the most skilled player winning.
LunarWolf21
New Member
I can see many parallels between Pokemon Catcher, and Heavy Storm (from Yu-Gi-Oh). Both cards are "broken", but to what extent? They both offer up their own unique brand of skill that the game wouldn't have without them, and limit what would otherwise be a limitless backrow.
My stance is that, neither card actually ruins the format - they just change it. Whether or not someone prefers this change, is all opinion. But I would also like to say that Catcher isn't really what ruins Stage 2s - Basics and Stage 1s that have Stage 2 equivalent power, ruin Stage 2s.
My stance is that, neither card actually ruins the format - they just change it. Whether or not someone prefers this change, is all opinion. But I would also like to say that Catcher isn't really what ruins Stage 2s - Basics and Stage 1s that have Stage 2 equivalent power, ruin Stage 2s.
- Status