Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Iron Chef: elite eight challenges/descriptions are UP! (discussion thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I feel like rainbowgym should have won. Cyrus said to expect people to try to do the same thing you are which was (in rainbowgym's case) deck out. Rainbowgym did a great job in making sure the opponent wouldn't deck out before she did. Now I will say that Uxie would have been an amazing play but she still did a nice job making sure she would deck before her opponent.
 
I was trying to find a good summary of this match. Here it is, from the original analysis of Rainbowgym vs Pooka:

Originally posted by Cyrus

Now, it wouldn't be extremely hard for Lia to lay claim to the win here, but there just isn't much to backup her list in terms of actually decking. It has strayed from the goal, and although does an excellent job of metagaming, it's truthfully an unfocused build. that will have a good deal of trouble decking out. [sic]
Click to expand...

Now perhaps "isn't much to backup" and "unfocused" are inaccurate phrases, but this comment underlines my main feeling about the match: I felt that Pitch-Dark and Ghosts were made too much of a focus, and strayed from the initial goal.
 
What is wrong about the ghost, they provide me hugh draw along with Mars/Felicity. And they don't limit my hand like Uxie does. I can draw over and over (and discard).

How on earth should you draw all cards from your deck if you cannot use normal trainers to "burn" your hand?
Perhaps I calculated wrong, but 4 Uxie only give you max 28 card, along with set up and prizes = 43 cards.
So if you go with Pitch-Dark and therefor are aware your opponent can also use the same technic, you need something else to reach the goal-> deck out. You would be very stupid to base your own deck on normal trainers only if you know there is a change your run into Gastly.

Therefor I balanced my deck into supporters to provide me draw in case of Mesprit or even a mirror Gastly.
Normal Trainers to get my ghost out faster (and therefor more draw).

Just a curious question, what would any of you play along with Gastly to go deck out? Knowing your opponent might use
Gastly / Mesprit / Uxie ?
I didn't rely on only powers, because they could be blocked.
I didn't rely on only trainers, because they could be blocked.
I have several options in my build, to go deck out, however it will never be turn 2 or 3, but like I said in the write up that's the "prize" I have to pay for blocking my opponent and considering the metagame.

I had only 1 worst case scenario -> Unown L mirror, but my opponent didn't use them.

The initial goal was to deck out, and it was even in bold that you should consider the metagame and the fact your opponent has the same goal -> deck out.
I actually created the "metagame" by making this deck.
What I did was "here is my build and what is your answer on it"? "did you think about this could be used"?

In the top 16 challenge, I had to take into account Palkia (trans back) therefor being forced to use Fossils.
In this challenge I had to take Gastly into account and therefor don't rely on a full trainer based deck.
One card in a "format" can force you to "have an answer on it".
I really think my opponent "overlooked" the Gastly, or took the gamble, I really don't know.
 
Regice against a list that runs only 7 energy=ummmm, not good. I think if pooka had felicities in his list (which is a must for anything looking to deck out with uxie), I don't think theres even a debate here. The problem with your list RG is that you don't play a whole lot of draw cards, making you case to deck within the first 6 turns pretty unlikely. A few uxie would've probably given you this match.
 
Cyrus said:
I was trying to find a good summary of this match. Here it is, from the original analysis of Rainbowgym vs Pooka
Now perhaps "isn't much to backup" and "unfocused" are inaccurate phrases, but this comment underlines my main feeling about the match: I felt that Pitch-Dark and Ghosts were made too much of a focus, and strayed from the initial goal.
Click to expand...

And Andceo's 15 cards for Glaceon were not too much of a focus and straying from the initial goal then?

And Andceo, I definitely have no anger towards you. You made a great deck and you only do what I'm doing as well, arguing for your side.
I still think my list was the better 'iron chef' deck, and think more people on the other thread seemed to vote for me, but w/e it unfortunately is not a committee that decides.
 
Brady1 said:
Regice against a list that runs only 7 energy=ummmm, not good. I think if pooka had felicities in his list (which is a must for anything looking to deck out with uxie), I don't think theres even a debate here. The problem with your list RG is that you don't play a whole lot of draw cards, making you case to deck within the first 6 turns pretty unlikely. A few uxie would've probably given you this match.
Click to expand...


3 Dusknoir along with
4 Felicity
4 Mars
4 Pokedex handy
4 Pokedrawer
3 Unown R
Sure isn't enough draw.:eek:
And 6 turns is optimistic, but possible.
As long as my opponent cannot deck out it doesn't matter how much turns I need.

And Regice, well I think I can choose the bench pokemon to bring up.
The question is, will my opponent waist a benchspace on it? And how long can he discard 2 cards if he is not able to draw many?

Decking out with an Uxie build is not that difficult (if you are not stopped) and for this challenge the best option was Lots of trainers/1 Supporter/1 nrg.
2 Supporters is oke when you can dump 1 (possible with Regice)
More supporter will get in your way.
I think Roseanna was the beter choice for this challenge.

Good luck everybody in the next round.
 
I don't get how Regice hurts Rainbowgym. She's gonna keep a Gastly in the active and bench another Gastly so that Regice will just force the switch from Gastly to Gastly. She'll can keep the Gastly lock the whole game with one Gastly active and one Gasty benched for a total of two Gastly. Gastly Gastly Gastly Gastly Gastly. ;/
 
Pidgeotto Trainer said:
And Andceo's 15 cards for Glaceon were not too much of a focus and straying from the initial goal then?

And Andceo, I definitely have no anger towards you. You made a great deck and you only do what I'm doing as well, arguing for your side.
I still think my list was the better 'iron chef' deck, and think more people on the other thread seemed to vote for me, but w/e it unfortunately is not a committee that decides.
Click to expand...

This is why I said it would be a GREAT idea to have a panel of 3 like the "real Iron Chef."

This is getting really sad tbh, after SuperWooper vs ME, when SW beat me, I didn't continue arguing that much...lol, granted, I felt I should have won, and I too had the most votes by 3. I had the prelim vote, and even with the most votes, the prelim flipped towards Super Wooper. I still have grapes about that but its all good.

I am a big fan of this competition, it is sooooo exciting, but things need to change tbh.

1) Have a 3 person Panel to get a less subjective opinion.
2) Challenges that NEVER have a metagame.
3) Challenges that dont make an automatic idea of a card. Challenges, that make you really think. Instead of common-sense ones.

I do think, anything before the top 32 should not use ANY of the 3 changes I mentioned.
 
It's sooo hard to organize something like that though. I remember Kettler tried doing that and the other judges wouldn't grade in time and stuff, it was awful.
 
John announced (at least that's how I understood) that this would be his last Iron Chef.
That would be sad, because grading in such a fast way he does is not something you can easily find another person for.
He got over 250 decklist to check this iron chef and he did it so fast.
He answered emails etc, which costed him a lot of time.
Were do we find somebody willing to dedicate so much time on this?

I don't think we should loose the Iron Chef (and John), but it's his decission.
However I offered help and I hope there will be a new Iron Chef next month.
Still waiting for John to reply.
 
Where do we find somebody willing to dedicate so much time on this?
Click to expand...

I definitely have enough time. (My whole life is like free time. ;/) And I've made it to the last few rounds of every Iron Chef competition in which I've competed: Age of Yamato, Age of Kabuto (I think this one was the ToC), and Age of [Ness's last name, which I can't spell], so I'm experienced, I guess. What I'm worried about is the pressure that comes with trying to "get it right." I've seen a lot of matches in this particular competition where I didn't know who I'd pick as the winner. And the Rainbowgym versus Pooka match? If I pick Pooka, Rainbowgym knows that she had the metagame cornered, and feels shafted. If I pick Lia, Pooka knows that his deck accomplished the goal of decking out with a lot more effectiveness, and he feels shafted. It's ridiculous. Also, I would have to get a substitute judge for any matches that one of my teammates is involved in.

I have definitely thought about it before, though.
 
SW - I have thought a lot about my match up with Pooka today and also got a lot of people who told me what they think about it. (Yes people from Europe do read here but don't respond).

I hope I can explain correctly what I am thinking of.
Challenge for group 1 and 3 were "easily" to judge, because they were kind of mirror.
Challenge for group 2 is going to be redone, which is the best way, that format/challenge was serious "wrong".
Challenge for group 4 (mine) is actually not won and a tie.
Why?
Because you cannot really compare our lists, if it was a kind of mirror it would have been like group 1 and 3.
But it wasn't. I did something unusual by "creating" an unexpected but very likely "metagame" and countered it.

The more I think about it, the more I have the feeling there is no real winner/loser.
So assigning one in this matter is what happened.
Now i don't know how Cyrus/Andceo/Pooka would think about my idea, but I am still going to bring it up.
What if also make a list for the next challenge?
And in case my list is better than both Andceo and Pooka, I will be the one going on to finals.
If my list is worse I simply ended Top 8, but not because I lost a challenge which cannot really be judged due to my strange build.
Again it depends on all 3 gentlemen if they feel the same about this too.
If they don't it stops for me, but that way there is no "loser" in a "game/challenge" which is in my view undecided.
There is no need to redo or whatever, because this situation is different than the group 2 challenge.

How does that sound?
I know it's not how it usual is supposed to go, but it would satisfy my feeling of indeed being "shafted" and prevent Pooka from being "shafted, because I really think that should not happen.

Li@
 
Lia, i can trust you, but i don't feel it is the best solution we can have.
I don't think your challenges was more tie than me and PT's one...they both were hard challenges.
Now, i came back to your and Pooka's challenge and i think the deck are so different that it was different for us to make a comparison.
But at the T8 of such a big contest, i think there were various situation in which it happens.

John wrote down "how" he finally decided two winners.
He clearly said that both you and Pooka made 2 good lists, but he feels your was less balanced than Pooka's one.
I mean, the card you used to counter the opponent cards were more than the cards you used to reach the goal, figuring out a situation of an "unbalanced" deck which can have setting problems the first turns.
I didn't have a look at the contest as much as John had, but i think that maybe without the Dusknoir line and with only 4x Gastly and 2x Unown L (because it's a key card and it can be prized) the deck would have had a better chance because it would have worked more (T1 Gastly possibility increased of like 25% even if you start first).
This is how i think John took decision.
If it was tie, he would have said it was tie.

I think that the fact he said he wanted all of us 8 included in an Iron Chef Tournament of Champions was enough to show he think all of us are very skilled deck builders and it's really hard to judge our games. But well, he has to find a winner.
 
I don't see how I would be any less deserving of an 'extra' oppurtunity as RainbowGym.

But I'm not going to demand a redo or anything. Even if I think I should've won, you can't just do a redo every time someone thinks they lost unfairly. No one would be eliminated lol. Many other losers from previous rounds would also say 'why didn't I get that?'.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Would still like to know how Rainbow's Gastly are too much a focus and stray from the goal but andceo's Glaceon does not. ;p
 
Last edited:
Pidgeotto Trainer said:
I don't see how I would be any less deserving of an 'extra' oppurtunity as RainbowGym.

But I'm not going to demand a redo or anything. Even if I think I should've won, you can't just do a redo every time someone thinks they lost unfairly. No one would be eliminated lol. Many other losers from previous rounds would also say 'why didn't I get that?'.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Would still like to know how Rainbow's Gastly are too much a focus and stray from the goal but andceo's Glaceon does not. ;p
Click to expand...

Well your list was based around the same idea as Andceo's. Therefor it can be compared. So why should you?
The same goes for Magnechu/Acutin.
Also this part of the contest differed from the others (except the 1 basic one) and could therefor end up different.

As far as I understood being creative was a part of the contest and it seems that's not really honored.
Being creative is not throwing in a 1-1 line of something, it goes above that.
Well let it be, I am simply much to creative to win this kind of contest who are directed towards a straight forward goal instead of covering all aspects.
 
Pidgeotto Trainer said:
Would still like to know how Rainbow's Gastly are too much a focus and stray from the goal but andceo's Glaceon does not. ;p
Click to expand...

I think that it's because our lists have a difference of 1 turn in reaching the goal while Rainbow/Pooka have more and because while i used 9 cards to metagame and 6 cards to both help the setting and improve the other 9 cards job, RainbowGym used more.
So all i did is sacrificing 1 turn for the goal to prevent my opponent to do that, while RainbowGym built a deck based almost all on do that.
And as John said, we used the same deck (40/60 cards in common) while Pooka/Rainbow used a different one (20/60 cards in common, most of all common trainers).

But well, it's just my opinion.
 
Guys the only thing I did was considered a much bigger "metagame" (or in other words card who could destroy my goal of deck out).
I simply was prepared to face: Gastly, Mesprit, Unown L and TG Mars.
If you keep all those cards in mind you get a much different deck

While in the PT/Andceo match up they only should be aware that anything who stops powers would destroy their goal.
And there are only 2 cards who can do that Mesprit/Glaceon (only Pokemon)
In my match up there were more cards wo could do this and they are Pokemon AND trainers.
Much more complicated.
 
To whomever takes over for me:

It won't be impossible to get a panel of judges together. Just make sure that they're reliable, willing, and as close to "non-biased" as you can get.

I might find some way to pick my "replacement/s" if we have people interested in taking over the contest. :thumb:

Also, to reply to Rainbowgym's suggestion: I will not redo the fourth match in any way. The reason why I am redoing SuperWooper/Brady's and not everyone else's is because there was a fundamental flaw with the challenge I issued.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

*Click.* Be sure to get LOTS of discussion going to prepare for the challenge to be announced tomorrow!

New thread coming up soon...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top