Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

I choose you Pikachu!

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mob2099

New Member
I thought this would be another good topic to talk about with the "change" and "balance" topics floating around.

This isn't my idea.
I heard it at Worlds from Vince and Clay.
And I don't recall this idea being talked about on the Gym before.

Change the way we start/setup to play TCG Pokemon more towards the Gameboy version since allot of other aspect are already leaning that way more and more.

In the Gameboy version you get to choose the pokemon to start with. It is not randomly draw out by the game amongst the 3-6 in your party.

So why can't we do this in Pokemon TCG.

Setup would go like this:

Players pick their starter pokemon from their deck and place it in the active position.

Player’s shuffler and offer to cut.

Players draw 6 cards and then decide on who goes first.

The game continues normal after that.

IMO, when I was told this idea, I felt like this is the way we should have been playing all the time.
It cuts out bad starts, no mulligans, donks, 4 of deck builds just for a starter, gives way for more strategic tech builds and decreases the luck factor of the game allot.

I am a little bias on this idea, so it my take other opinions to see fault it this setup/start style.

The game has change how it does operate from time to time. So it’s no big thing to change this aspect that could give way to a huge change in luck and deck building style.
 
I...kinda like this idea, I'd have to say. This opens possibilities to setup decks a lot more. A Kingdra player for instance would have to worry: Start with Horsea and face a possible Sableye donk? I think it would add a strategic aspect to the game.
 
No, there is no reason to change a mechanic that has worked for over 10 years. When you try to change a mechanic that has worked well and for a long time you run the risk of alienating your fan base and cause your TCG/CCG to go under. Look at Score and the DBZ game. They had a game that was fine and they decide to change a bunch of staple mechanics from when the game first came out when the introduced DBGT, and the game died, and has now had 2 more incarnation that have nothing to do with the original game and are not as popular. If they have left the mechanics that worked the same maybe the game would still be here. You CAN'T change certain mechanics. Alas there are some that have been changed but only when you see an issue with it. Retreat twice, replacing a stadium with the same stadium, etc. But those are few and far between. It just doesn't need to be fix and should remain the same during the duration that the Pokemon TCG is produced, which is hopefully for a long time. :thumb:

Drew
 
I completely agree with you about DBZ, score completely ruined it, and now they released some new game that is nothing like the original.

YOU CAN RETREAT TWICE, or was that changed?
 
TheDarkTwins said:
No, there is no reason to change a mechanic that has worked for over 10 years. When you try to change a mechanic that has worked well and for a long time you run the risk of alienating your fan base and cause your TCG/CCG to go under. Look at Score and the DBZ game. They had a game that was fine and they decide to change a bunch of staple mechanics from when the game first came out when the introduced DBGT, and the game died, and has now had 2 more incarnation that have nothing to do with the original game and are not as popular. If they have left the mechanics that worked the same maybe the game would still be here. You CAN'T change certain mechanics. Alas there are some that have been changed but only when you see an issue with it. Retreat twice, replacing a stadium with the same stadium, etc. But those are few and far between. It just doesn't need to be fix and should remain the same during the duration that the Pokemon TCG is produced, which is hopefully for a long time. :thumb:

Drew
Click to expand...

ILBD: No you can't retreat twice. That was WOTC era.

DarkTwins: I feel the changes you have stated are minor. Others that we have endured and embraced that are higher on my list are:
Draw a card first turn.
No trainers, supporters or stadiums first turn.
Confusion rule.

This mechanic that "Works" is a main cause of donks, bad starts and decrease potentail of ones deck or cards that could be tech in such deck. And does not follow suite to the Gameboy style of play that we are seeing more and more.

I feel this change in mechanic to be minor to those above and have a more positive aspect on the game due to the reasons I stated before. Unlike your statement which does not state reasons against a proposed change. Just a rant not to, because of some "other" game and players that "we" are not.
 
Last edited:
Just as a note, this type of change is a PCL/Nintendo decision.

You will see it coming in advance in the Japanese version of the game, just like the
first turn
confusion
retreat
changes you mentioned above.

Not that it couldn't possibly happen, but for perspective, I don't think any of those changes were spawned by U.S./Int'l research/ideas.
 
This would turn the game into a totally different beast. Luck is a good thing. It keeps the game fresh. Take it out, and you have people running techs of 10 different pokemon (1 each) and can choose which one to start with depending on who they are facing, in order to get the quickest donk possible.

Also, if you wanted it to be like the video game, you'd have to let the player choose 6 pokemon out of his deck to start with, since in the video game, you don't randomly find pokemon while battling other trainers. The bench would be untouchable other than to Warp effects, and Status conditions would not be removed when benched, just wouldn't trigger until active again (try teaching that to the kids..."your poisoned, but your not active so you don't take poison damage"...huh what?).

The game is FINE the way it is in my opinion. I don't see a reason to change it to more like the video game.
 
Clay is the one who came up with this, and I talked with him about it all the way to Florida.

After attacking, and evaluating it, I decided that I really liked it, and it would improve the game.

Took the idea to PUI, and I think they forwarded it on for conideration.

The game becomes much more skill based, as you can choose never to allow a turn 1 donk to happen to you (unless you have no energy for Pachirisu), as either you will (a) go first, or (b) they can't rare candy on turn 1.

It makes the card game COMPLETELY consistent with the Video Game and the Cartoon. They don't throw a "random" pokeball, they say...Pikachu...I CHOOSE YOU!

There we go.

Vince
 
I like this idea! We play this format at the league I go to... once a month. I honestly like the idea.
 
This is honestly the most awful suggestion to the game I have ever heard. This pretty much destroys the purpose of teching in 4 starters, mulligans, and any other decisions based on luck.

Luck is funny in this game. I think it really decides skill sometimes.

I think one of the huge skill factors in deciding whether you are a good player or not (as opposed to just having a good deck or good luck) is what you make from what you have. If you have a bad start, your brain kicks into this better mode of play where you suddenly play much better. That decides how good of a PLAYER you are in mind.

This would be an awful game if this rule was put forth, and Sableye would just be BROKEN.
 
Sableye SF and Machamp SF were just really bad card design the begin with. Its a shame this discussion even has to occur.

My personal remedy, make it so players don't lose until the end of their turn closest to losing their last pokemon (current if it is already their turn, next if the opponent does it). That was their is maximum chance a player can recover. Don't get me wrong, even in this spot, a donk would put you in an extremely bad possition, but it would definately solve the problem of the exceptionally cheap wins often provided by Machamp, Kingdra and Sableye, without killing their viable compedativeness.

Also, lets all agree to pedition, 40, no effect, needs to be the absolute max for a 0-1 energy attack, unless it involves a coinflip or outside cards. We think its bad now, just wait for Rampardos.
 
I'm split on this suggestion.

Pros:

-It, in a way, conforms to the video games.
-It effectively eliminates bad starters...No wasted Spiritombs for you!

Cons (point by point):

-Conforming to the video games should not influence the decision to change rules. Otherwise, we'd only be allowed six basics per deck, and would have any form of deck replenishment banned.
*Side note: plenty of other elements don't conform to the Game Boy game. Virtually anything Energy-related should be considered non-canon in the games.

-It takes emphasis off of consistency. Part of what makes a "bad" start bad is simply having something that's sub-optimal. Everyone (some people more than others) knows the frustration of getting bad hands with good lists, but it's just a demon that every player has to deal with.

-It takes emphasis off of the value of certain cards (and in the process, de-emphasizes the need to buy more packs in order to get playsets!).
 
Mob2099 said:
No you can't retreat twice. That was WOTC era.

I feel the changes you have stated are minor. Others that we have endured and embraced that are higher on my list are:
Draw a card first turn.
No trainers, supporters or stadiums first turn.
Confusion rule.

This mechanic that "Works" is a main cause of donks, bad starts and decrease potentail of ones deck or cards that could be tech in such deck. And does not follow suite to the Gameboy style of play that we are seeing more and more.

I feel this change in mechanic to be minor to those above and have a more positive aspect on the game due to the reasons I stated before. Unlike your statement which does not state reasons against a proposed change. Just a rant not to, because of some "other" game and players that "we" are not.
Click to expand...

Read what I said again, since you misread what I wrote. :nonono:

Drew
 
Cyrus said:
-Conforming to the video games should not influence the decision to change rules. Otherwise, we'd only be allowed six basics per deck, and would have any form of deck replenishment banned.
*Side note: plenty of other elements don't conform to the Game Boy game. Virtually anything Energy-related should be considered non-canon in the games.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying everything should conform to the video game. This aspect of conforming to the video game is just icing on the cake, since many little changes have reflected such in the past.

Cyrus said:
-It takes emphasis off of consistency. Part of what makes a "bad" start bad is simply having something that's sub-optimal. Everyone (some people more than others) knows the frustration of getting bad hands with good lists, but it's just a demon that every player has to deal with.
Click to expand...

But if bad starts are a demon in the game and can be eradicated with such a simple mechanic that has ties to Pokemon already. Wouldn't it be foolish not to implement such mechanic to better the game and have one more tie the World beloved Video game counterpart. Why does luck have to reside in this aspect of the game too. If this is one area that we can increase the level of skill, why not. We still have all those flip attacks, flip trainers and/or flip powers that bring about more or less luck. You still have the luck of the match up of weakness VS resistance. That is allot of luck controlling these games for the ones that need it so much to have FUN.

Cyrus said:
-It takes emphasis off of the value of certain cards (and in the process, de-emphasizes the need to buy more packs in order to get playsets!).
Click to expand...

We are really only talking a tech of starters here. One of's in this mechanic. In previous modified structure of deck builds only a few starters have ever been rares, most are uncommons. I really don't feel the handful or less decks the require a 4 of starter for consistency is going to effect the amount of packs bought when they only need one of such starter. They still need the 3-4 of T-TAR, Kingdra or Dusknoir among the few that are rares and above, and not to mention the Lv X or Claydol needed in this format. Those are the cards that equal more packs bought/sold.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top