is Pokemon TCG become too "Supporter dependant"

Discussion in 'TCG News & Gossip Discussion' started by Cooltrainer Aaron, Feb 18, 2004.

8 league13 468 60
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cooltrainer Aaron

    Cooltrainer Aaron New Member

    a parallel to "ex-dependent"

    Remember the good old days when we had the simple trainer cards, not these super draw trainers called supporters. Now adays, decks are completely dependent on supporters and not enough on Pokemon. One little Armaldo can cancel Supporters for the remainder of the game.
  2. dkates

    dkates New Member

    I'd say Supporters are definitely more important now than they used to be. Even just before the change to E-on, Modified had plenty of useful Trainers that weren't Supporters. Now, in E-on, the number of useful non-Supporter Trainers has decreased. Still, there are plenty of useful Trainers in E-on that aren't Supporters. Decks always greatly depended on Trainers, it's just that more of them are Supporters than they used to be.
  3. Prime

    Prime Content Developer<br>Blog Admin<br>Contest Host

    There are no non-supporter draw cards, so I would say yes.
  4. dkates

    dkates New Member

    Well, there's Ancient Ruins. It's a Stadium, and it's weak, but it is draw power and it is non-Supporter. I use it in my own E-on decks, and it's actually pretty useful.
  5. bullados

    bullados <a href="

    For pure draw, then yes, there is no substitute in terms of Trainers for Supporters (including Ancient Ruins). If you're talking anything else, however, then no. You've got the different Balls (Dual, Fast, Friend) as well as a couple of very nice speed cards (RC and others) and decent healing (Moomoo). There are replacements for non-draw Supporters, and I've found that these non-Supporters are actually stronger than the Supporters, given that they can be used more than once per turn (the Balls).
  6. Baboon

    Baboon New Member

    Yes, in my opinion, it is too Supporter-dependant, but there is little way around it. From the cards released, there is very little choice but to use these Supporters. I understand the logic behind Supporters, limiting the more powerful cards to 1 a turn, but by eliminating basically the non-Supporter Trainers, almost all Trainers in this sense are Supporters. So, by almost everything being Supporters, it's as if there's a new rule in the game where only 1 Trainer a turn can be played, where it should be just 1 powerful card. (Yes, I know I'm exaggerating, and I know there are *some* non-Supporter cards, but I'm making a point.)
    Also, more and more weaker cards are earning the title "Supporter", which effectively screws the player over and makes games less exciting.

    Simplified: Yes, decks are too Supporter-dependant, but can you blame the players?
  7. zell94606

    zell94606 New Member

    supporters are not a bad thing in my opinion. but there arent any good supporters that could cause disruptions
    i would really want to see a supporter version of ER and SER
  8. Prime

    Prime Content Developer<br>Blog Admin<br>Contest Host

    No, we need non-supporters of SER and ER, because we don't need anymore good supporters. In the future, if all we see is good supporters, the game will turn into "play only one trainer per turn". In which that would not be cool.
  9. Pidgeotto Trainer

    Pidgeotto Trainer New Member

    Yes the game is supporter dependant but has helped make the game less trainer dependant even from Neon. The game relies more on Pokemon now then the days of trainermon.
  10. Broken Lizard

    Broken Lizard New Member

    The whole trend is to make decks more Pokémon-dependent and less Trainer-dependent. Remember when so many people were decrying 'Trainermon'? Even in the original MF, most decks were running huge numbers of trainers and relying on them very heavily.

    The supporter concept was designed to create the current metagame.

    Yes, it's annoying to have such restricted trainer power after being hooked on Trainermon, but I think the supporter rule is good for the game.

    I do agree that there really should be more disruption available than we have right now. We need ways to allow rogue decks to interfere with the setup and functioning of the heavy hitting archetypes. Give me IOR, Rocket's Trap or any decent disruption, even with a flip, and I'll be a lot happier...

    But surely you don't want to go back to the days of:

    4 SER
    4 GOW
    4 Computer Search
    4 Item Finder
    4 Oak
    etc, etc...

    If you do... Unlimited still exists!
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2004
  11. Perfect0ne

    Perfect0ne New Member

    I didn't read anything but the title- and i just want to say that this is what keep us from searching through the whole deck in a turn (like unlimited). Everything changes, would we all be happy with reprint sets forever? Of course not, because we welcome new things, and sometimes new mechanics (ex. stadiums, tools, babies, ex-pokemon, and now supporters). Supporters are very annoying in the sense that they only can be played one at a time and other trainers are too weak to replace any supporters, but accept change and make the best of it. Maybe that's too preachy and I do not mean offense to anyone- that's just how I talk when I disagree with anything...whatever =P.
  12. NoPoke

    NoPoke Active Member

    anyone remember prop 15-3??

    Supporters are a compromise between no trainers whatsoever and rampant trainermon. There *may* be a better solution than Supporters to trainermon but so far supporters are the best solution to rampant trainermon (in MF that is)
  13. Gym Leader Blaine

    Gym Leader Blaine <a href="

    For me I would like to see a little less of the supporter cards and some more of the normal trainers. It would be nice to have a couple of drawing cards that were not supporters. Of coures I have been playing since the start of this game, and do remember the days were you could play 15+ trainer cards and such before the other person took his turn, and supporter cards have slowed this down, but some normal cards I think are needed in the game.
  14. HypnosProjectHQ

    HypnosProjectHQ New Member

    If everyone believes that Supporters are so crucial, why doesn't everyone just go and play Armaldo!?! See my point? There are some people that really don't take a stand point on this kind of situation. Most of these people, of course, play Unlimited. That'd make sense also... If you think this is such a big issue, go back to Unlimited and play SER, GOW, Oak, and Item Finder. Play IOR... though it would be nice for Nintendo to release this to us. But if you can really think of the one card that brought around the beginning of the Supporter concept, you would have to smack yourself for hating Supporters... Professor Elm! Professor Elm was the first card with that concept. Its bad qualities are even more so than Supporters to date. So just be greatful with what we've got in MF as of now.
  15. Baboon

    Baboon New Member

    The answer here is not "Go play Unlimited" =\. The main issue is how Modified has basically turned into 1 Trainer a turn. Yes, there are some good points to it, but it's gotten to be less interesting with Trainers being shot down. Even if not powerful, we need non-Supporter Trainers. Since Expedition, so many Trainers are Supporters that calling them Supporters is redundant.

    Personally, I do like Trainers. I'm not one of those huge enthusiasts who believes we NEED 40 in a deck to be good, but there is a large difference between Trainers dominating everything and them being pushed aside. With Supporters, they may as well be pushed aside, as you cannot get much done in a turn with them anymore. We need the choice of running Supporters, non-Supporters, or a combination of the 2 as our Trainer engine.

    And one last thing, an idea behind all this is to shift the focus back to Pokemon. Ok, that's all good and everything, but guess what...? Not many Pokemon replace the Trainers' duties. And those that do will not be as easy to put into a deck and will reduce variety.

    All I mean is that they greatly overcompensated for Trainers being too influencial. We don't need superpower non-Supporters. We need average, reasonable cards. It's pretty sad when the only non-Supporter draw Trainer in ALL of Modified (6 decent sized sets) is Ancient Ruins, and that only gets you 1 card, under certain conditions AND under the sacrifice of showing your hand. =\ The problem here is there is not much way around the situation until/unless some cards are printed to allow some diversity in decks.
  16. sneaselsrevenge

    sneaselsrevenge New Member

    There is a decent amount of trainers that aren't "supporters".

    Pokenav - when comboed with oracle, its almost broken
    Oran Berry
    Warp Point
    Rare Candy

    I would like to see a little more non supporter trainers too, but its not like what we have is hurting the environment. If anything, its an improvement over what we used to have.
  17. Baboon

    Baboon New Member

    Yeah,...8 "decent" Trainers. Yes, it's better than nothing, but that's pitiful. Of all the sets allowed, there should be more, and they should be more varied. Drawing and disruption are virtually nonexistent.
  18. Otaku

    Otaku Active Member

    Just to clarify, I think many here agree-it's not too many Supporters that's the problem. It's not enough good non-supporters. What's a good non-supporter? Actually, even confined to Modified that's not too hard. What's a good non-supporter that can fit in almost any deck? now we have more trouble naming them. I think TPC needs to set quotas for card types. Try to release "X" Trainers total in a set, and then spread them out through the various types. Oh, and more special energies-one per set would be good.
  19. bullados

    bullados <a href="

    Need you be reminded about the TATM set with 3 different special energies, one of which that is so broken that it will be run in every single Mod deck guaranteed?
  20. RaNd0m

    RaNd0m New Member

    Guys, this is obviously just a ploy to introduce a new rule to the game. Only one trainer per turn! Japan had wanted to do this since the FIRST wcsts... only they proposed "2" at the time...

    ~ Jon
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page