Official Ban Gardevoir for Worlds 2008 Discussion
- Thread starter Scizor
- Start date
- Status
SuperWooper
New Member
I think that the most legitimate angle you've got here is that Gardy is incredibly tough to beat on time - and unfortunately, that angle is the one least likely to result in any action from POP. Timed matches are a necessary evil, and if they acknowledge that Gardy wrecks people with the clock, and ban it as a result, that would be suicide. They would be opening the floodgates for complaints along the lines of "Deck X beats decks Y and Z in thirty-minute swiss, where's the ban?" for years to come. Now I'm not saying that the point isn't a valid one (indeed, I have already agreed to as much), nor am I suggesting that Gardy's thirty minute limit abuse would be the only reason for a ban/restriction/whatever, but you can't really use that angle if it's a ban you're really after.
Even beyond that, though, I don't believe that Gardevoir is unbeatable. You're probably thinking, "Of course not, no deck is unbeatable, genius." But I am confident that, in the sea of ideas that the game's greatest minds have thrown around in an attempt to break the Gardy match wide open, there is a hidden gem that could do it, if only given the opportunity. I saw a couple of neat concepts at Nats that I know are being experimented with right now, and if those don't pan out, more will follow.
The way I'm looking at it right now is this: Gardy is the rough equivalent of Blaze in '04. Same dominating numbers all across the country, same "play it or counter it" mentality. But by the end of that same season, Blaziken had been, in large part, dethroned (Fulop did make it to the finals at Worlds with Blaze, but a lot of focus had shifted to Swampert, Shiftry, Metabyss by that time). I'm thinking that a repeat is possible. And even if Gardy does take Worlds, I will maintain the belief that it wasn't worth the ban. IMO, the only card that has ever warranted a ban is Neo Genesis Slowking, because of the brokenness of the stupid thing, coupled with the unacceptable degree of randomness it forced into the game.
Okay, no more rambling. Bottom line: If there's one thing that's ban-able about Gardy, it's the mirror. But the card itself isn't ban-worthy.
Even beyond that, though, I don't believe that Gardevoir is unbeatable. You're probably thinking, "Of course not, no deck is unbeatable, genius." But I am confident that, in the sea of ideas that the game's greatest minds have thrown around in an attempt to break the Gardy match wide open, there is a hidden gem that could do it, if only given the opportunity. I saw a couple of neat concepts at Nats that I know are being experimented with right now, and if those don't pan out, more will follow.
The way I'm looking at it right now is this: Gardy is the rough equivalent of Blaze in '04. Same dominating numbers all across the country, same "play it or counter it" mentality. But by the end of that same season, Blaziken had been, in large part, dethroned (Fulop did make it to the finals at Worlds with Blaze, but a lot of focus had shifted to Swampert, Shiftry, Metabyss by that time). I'm thinking that a repeat is possible. And even if Gardy does take Worlds, I will maintain the belief that it wasn't worth the ban. IMO, the only card that has ever warranted a ban is Neo Genesis Slowking, because of the brokenness of the stupid thing, coupled with the unacceptable degree of randomness it forced into the game.
Okay, no more rambling. Bottom line: If there's one thing that's ban-able about Gardy, it's the mirror. But the card itself isn't ban-worthy.
ChaosJim
Member
If enough copies of any deck enter a tournament, its odds of winning increase. Let's say the best deck to beat Gardy has 75/25 matchup. Let's say its 60/40 against everything else. 5 copies of that deck, do the math, you can just get nerfed. Your time would be better spent testing Gardy, or testing against Gardy, then trying to get it banned. I say this as helpful advice in an unproductive thread.
Darkwalker
New Member
I've been playing Gardy variants since SW came out, and I have to agree the time factor is a huge advantage for the deck, but only combined with the fact that the deck can easily rack up 3 prizes quickly. Oddly while people were hoping Claydol would open the format up a bit to make other decks viable, it actually strengthened the hold Gardy has on the format. Claydol is countered by Gardy, of course, but Claydol also allows for even longer turns in the deck. My best example was a game at Nats (one in which I lost).
I'm playing Plox against a Blissey/Banette deck. My opponent played a Copycat earlier in the game and I was playing enough Warp Point and Windstorm to get Cessation Crystal out of the way at least for a turn. I started my turn by playing a couple cards out of my hand, then Telepassed his Copycat for 11 new cards. I played emptied my hand down to 4 and used Claydol #1 drawing 4 more cards, again used another 3 cards and drew another 3 cards. Over all the turn took around 7 or 8 minutes and I went through roughly half of my deck. One other important note about all this, my opponent had called a judge over for a time extension because my turns were taking so long. So with a judge watching I ended up taking the longest turn I have ever had in this game without stalling or even trying to. The deck simply has so many options during each turn it gets to use it's powers.
While some might see time as an unfair advantage, others could look at it as one of the deck's biggest strengths. While I'm not sure an outright ban is warranted, I just don't see anything that can consistently stand up to a well played Gardy based deck, and still stand some kind of chance against the other decks that could be played. Restriction is probably the most plausible, but I'm really wondering just how much it would affect how the deck runs. The typical Plox deck runs 3 Gardy, 2 Gallade and a Gardy Lvl X. Most would restrict that down to 2 Gardy, 1 Gallade, and the Lvl X and fill the last two spots in with more Night Maintenance and/or TSD to make sure they can keep getting their evolutions back.
I'm playing Plox against a Blissey/Banette deck. My opponent played a Copycat earlier in the game and I was playing enough Warp Point and Windstorm to get Cessation Crystal out of the way at least for a turn. I started my turn by playing a couple cards out of my hand, then Telepassed his Copycat for 11 new cards. I played emptied my hand down to 4 and used Claydol #1 drawing 4 more cards, again used another 3 cards and drew another 3 cards. Over all the turn took around 7 or 8 minutes and I went through roughly half of my deck. One other important note about all this, my opponent had called a judge over for a time extension because my turns were taking so long. So with a judge watching I ended up taking the longest turn I have ever had in this game without stalling or even trying to. The deck simply has so many options during each turn it gets to use it's powers.
While some might see time as an unfair advantage, others could look at it as one of the deck's biggest strengths. While I'm not sure an outright ban is warranted, I just don't see anything that can consistently stand up to a well played Gardy based deck, and still stand some kind of chance against the other decks that could be played. Restriction is probably the most plausible, but I'm really wondering just how much it would affect how the deck runs. The typical Plox deck runs 3 Gardy, 2 Gallade and a Gardy Lvl X. Most would restrict that down to 2 Gardy, 1 Gallade, and the Lvl X and fill the last two spots in with more Night Maintenance and/or TSD to make sure they can keep getting their evolutions back.
The Phenom1993
Active Member
Increasing time limit could help solve the problem, but it still wouldn't solve everything.
I was thinking about making them evolve from different ralts.
Gallade evolves from male ralts
Gardeviour evolves from female ralts...just like the videogames.
They could print these cards and then give them to all players partecipating at worlds so whoever plays GG play them.
It could solve some of the problems and make GG slower.
I was thinking about making them evolve from different ralts.
Gallade evolves from male ralts
Gardeviour evolves from female ralts...just like the videogames.
They could print these cards and then give them to all players partecipating at worlds so whoever plays GG play them.
It could solve some of the problems and make GG slower.
The logical explanation is that pokemon is motivated by greed in the United States, we are the money generator, the big wigs could care less about us, they never denied this fact.
business is business..................
TheDarkTwins
Active Member
Jimmy, that is a horrible example and here is why. I will use Cities as an example. Frankie D. played GG in the first cities. He T2 the event. (I dont remember if he won.) So, the very next day, I decide to also play a GG deck. We were the only 2 players playing it. We placed 1st and 2nd at the event. By the end of Cities everyone was playing GG. It was stilly. I think the all but 1 of the Cities that, You, Frankie, or I attened was played by GG. At the beginning it was played by one or two players, but the end half the field was it. Seems a little bit overpowered if that is the case.
Drew
Papi/Manny
New Member
I just want to say a few things about slowking. 1) With 4 out, the "degree of randomness" was very low, and usually the trainer was stopped. 2) There were answers to the card. 3) With supporters rampant, and the ability to lock the games current broken trainers (poke-powers), gardy is an agressive, more successful lock-down varient of slowking. ;/
LionheartEX
Active Member
Signed.
Ok, I can say is that in Australia, only 20% of our Metagame is dominated by GG. I have had an enjoyable season playing against GG decks due to the fact I have only played against 3 or 4. I came second at my Nationals, loosing to a GG deck- I was using Empalkia and I had to get a bad matchup sooner or later. Sean got me with a T2 Wager and I simply scooped with no way to respond. He played it out very nicely (My starter was lapras :redface
. However after seeing result after result of this deck winning events, I'd like some variety. In addition, between Wager and Psychic Lock it's just a horrible deck. Some of the best cards in this format can't be used against it- Togekiss for example. GREAT card, but no no, I just got Psylocked so no dice.
Bannette- ok, sure, why not, i'll own GG but OH MY GOD RUN IT'S AN EMPOLEON!
It's a vicious cycle which always ends up with one deck being dominant.
-45 Minute Rounds
-Restrict one of them
-outright ban one of them
-open up the format a little (imo best option)
any of those would be a great improvement to the Worlds metagame.
Ok, I can say is that in Australia, only 20% of our Metagame is dominated by GG. I have had an enjoyable season playing against GG decks due to the fact I have only played against 3 or 4. I came second at my Nationals, loosing to a GG deck- I was using Empalkia and I had to get a bad matchup sooner or later. Sean got me with a T2 Wager and I simply scooped with no way to respond. He played it out very nicely (My starter was lapras :redface
. However after seeing result after result of this deck winning events, I'd like some variety. In addition, between Wager and Psychic Lock it's just a horrible deck. Some of the best cards in this format can't be used against it- Togekiss for example. GREAT card, but no no, I just got Psylocked so no dice.Bannette- ok, sure, why not, i'll own GG but OH MY GOD RUN IT'S AN EMPOLEON!
It's a vicious cycle which always ends up with one deck being dominant.
-45 Minute Rounds
-Restrict one of them
-outright ban one of them
-open up the format a little (imo best option)
any of those would be a great improvement to the Worlds metagame.
A few minor things:
1. I don't have any experience in the game right now or the variants. Not going to comment on if GG is broken or not.
2. This IS history repeating itself. We're doomed to it. Sneasel, slowking, feraligatr, the list goes on for which cards need to be banned. The only success was sneasel, and that was for the first modified format (otherwise, a good 60-80% of decks would have just been using sneasel).
3. I didn't expect this from you chad. I'm very shocked to see you post something like this. I understand your frustration, if this is the only option left, good luck.
4. do we have any information if there is an R & D sector for pokemon tcg by nintendo? As m:tg has an R & D (well, they have to because they create their cards, not translate them from japanese sets). An R & D sector by nintendo would go a long way to solve these problems by rewording cards to prevent a broken format long before the cards are released, and test new sets to see how they would interact with the metagame (This would have seriously helped when slowking came out from neo genesis, as the wording wasn't exactly like the japanese version, and that changed the history of the game).
1. I don't have any experience in the game right now or the variants. Not going to comment on if GG is broken or not.
2. This IS history repeating itself. We're doomed to it. Sneasel, slowking, feraligatr, the list goes on for which cards need to be banned. The only success was sneasel, and that was for the first modified format (otherwise, a good 60-80% of decks would have just been using sneasel).
3. I didn't expect this from you chad. I'm very shocked to see you post something like this. I understand your frustration, if this is the only option left, good luck.
4. do we have any information if there is an R & D sector for pokemon tcg by nintendo? As m:tg has an R & D (well, they have to because they create their cards, not translate them from japanese sets). An R & D sector by nintendo would go a long way to solve these problems by rewording cards to prevent a broken format long before the cards are released, and test new sets to see how they would interact with the metagame (This would have seriously helped when slowking came out from neo genesis, as the wording wasn't exactly like the japanese version, and that changed the history of the game).
Nintendo just translates and prints the cards. They wouldn't be able to "reword cards to prevent a broken format". And I am sure TPC has an R&D department, but that doesn't help us at all. WotC is also primarily a card company. They have the time to playtest all the cards before they come out. I doubt Nintendo would even be willing to do something like that with future english cards.
The obvious answer is the sync our format to Japan's, but that can't be done at this moment anyways, and would be hard to do in the future due to creative differences between the USA culture and Japanese culture such as difference in average shelf life, amount of product produced, etc.
I would like if Japan gave the word to Nintendo to never modify a set. In Japan, Gardevior/Lv.X/Gallade came out in two seperate sets. Because of modifications made by Nintendo, those 3 cards came out in the same set for us. Because of it, Gardevior/Gallade or GG was able to start dominating from Cities-on. Now, I know not much would have changed after States, but this would have partially changed GG's marathon run.
Matches need to be longer imho. It amazes me that Pre-Release games have the same amount of time to be played that World Championship and National Championship have. There is a much higher amount of complextivity to your turns and to the overall game in the World/Nationals, and it would make sense to give them more time to make their decisions. So many games at Nationals went to time, with plenty going over it thanks to sudden death. I think it would help the game if the games at Worlds/Nationals had a longer time limit, even if they had to reduce the number of rounds, just because it would promote full games, and rightful winners. Not who can hold the lead till the buzzer. This isn't a pie eating contest, this is the Olympics.
The obvious answer is the sync our format to Japan's, but that can't be done at this moment anyways, and would be hard to do in the future due to creative differences between the USA culture and Japanese culture such as difference in average shelf life, amount of product produced, etc.
I would like if Japan gave the word to Nintendo to never modify a set. In Japan, Gardevior/Lv.X/Gallade came out in two seperate sets. Because of modifications made by Nintendo, those 3 cards came out in the same set for us. Because of it, Gardevior/Gallade or GG was able to start dominating from Cities-on. Now, I know not much would have changed after States, but this would have partially changed GG's marathon run.
Matches need to be longer imho. It amazes me that Pre-Release games have the same amount of time to be played that World Championship and National Championship have. There is a much higher amount of complextivity to your turns and to the overall game in the World/Nationals, and it would make sense to give them more time to make their decisions. So many games at Nationals went to time, with plenty going over it thanks to sudden death. I think it would help the game if the games at Worlds/Nationals had a longer time limit, even if they had to reduce the number of rounds, just because it would promote full games, and rightful winners. Not who can hold the lead till the buzzer. This isn't a pie eating contest, this is the Olympics.
That's the really annoying part. Other decks CAN beat it, but they honestly take more than the time allotted for a swiss round to do it, and that comes from testing with timed games. Example: RG (Magmortar/Eeveelutions) needed roughly 35 minutes on average to decisively win the GG matchup. You CAN win in less, it's just difficult and if they have the normal fast start that they tend to have, it's even harder. Extend the time limit and it opens up the format to some of those "gems."
pichu bros. rox
New Member
I hope you didn't count on this working...
ToysRUsKid
Active Member
Maybe you should read the posts, you'll find your answer.
- Status