(1) M Venusaur-EX from ‘XY Collections’ Revealed! [11/7]

Blui said:
DNA said:
While it may be true that M-Venusaur-EX isn't the destroyer people think it is...

There is so much wrong with this statement I have no idea where to begin.

I believe he means compared to the VGC, but then it's a stupid comment.

I guess he meant that HP in general is low compared to damage output, making Pokémon have extremely low stay power in general. Weakness doubling damage done (which in other card games would seem absurd) makes it even easier killing stuff.
If that's what Otaku meant, I share his opinion.
 
This probably wont see very much play with genesect in the format truth be told. The venusaur takes way too long to set up with a 4 energy attack for only 120 and it ends your turn when you evolve it. Even if it does see play then Victini EX will rear up in popularity being able to KO Venusaur EX on T-2. Making mega-volving it very difficult and lack luster. Entai EX may also see more play. Who knows, either way the megas will be difficult to set up and probably wont be worth it.
 
Entei EX isn't much better speed-wise than Venusaur EX. ;p Mega Venusaur is probably not the best card in the world, you're right, but neither were most of the Pokemon-EX in Next Destinies. (With the massive exception of Mewtwo, of course.) And actually, some of them (Shaymin in particular) got better over time. Either way, bottom line is, they are obviously (and should be) starting out slow. I'm prepared for Blastoise to be insane and prove me wrong, however. >.> (That being said, XY cards in general seem a little different. Low-HP basics are stronger (the Farfetch'd in the Kalos Starter decks has a 1 for 30 attack), obviously as a result of the new first-turn rule, and the Pokemon-EX don't seem MASSIVELY powerful. (They're weaker than most of Next Destinies'. Yveltal being less splashable balances it being marginally stronger than Mewtwo, especially given the fact you can't just slap a DCE on it. Blastoise and Xernias are almost completely weaker Kyurem and Black Kyurem EX.)
 
That...hideous...Crisis Vine. Like most of you, I agree that it was a very poor design choice to plaster the attack name on the card art (and not just because it's a dumb idea to begin with). There's a myriad of problems the card faces...

For one, it was poorly executed. The font used for the "Crisis Vine" is bland, and the gradient and faux-3D effect is something that could be easily replicated in a basic program like Word -- you wouldn't even need Photoshop for this!

Secondly, as it's already been pointed out, there's just too much going on. Between the multiple rules, petals flying everywhere, and the Crisis Vine...sheesh, a card doesn't have to scream "Look at me! I'm cool! I'm edgy! Look at how much stuff you can fit on me!" to work.

I think that petal toward the left side, right under the attack was another poor design choice. It forces the attack upwards, toward the Mega rule, leaving space between the attack and the EX rule. If you look at the left side where the petal is, it looks balanced enough, but on the right side it just looks...off.


TL;DR Over-designed and ugly with some ridiculous creative choices.

0/10 would not collect
 
What if they had a venasaurite ace-spec that overrid the end your turn mega evolve? That would make it easier to get out. Or something along those lines for megas.
 
All this is making me glad I stopped playing the TCG when I did, but that's all I really have to say about this card. I'm posting because the following post is redicolously wrong and it somehow got 5 likes, so allow me to rectify this.

Otaku said:
It just hurts to read some of these comments.

News flash: The TCG has abysmally low HP scores. Especially because the attacks aren't low and Weakness does double damage (and are really a tenth of what is printed - we always deal with even units of 10 so 200 is really just 20). Most of the TCG HP scores only make sense if the Pokémon in question is like level 30.
This is assuming the TCG should keep up with the games in terms of HP, which we know simply isn't the case. HP in the TCG is more of a combination of both HP, defence and special defence. It's redicolous to assume that the TCG can just copy the VG mechanics without at least some alteration. Don't forget that halves the types are missing, dual types haven't been used in ages and weakness and resistance work on a per card basis. Also, you can't snipe in the games, not can you evolve or add Pokémon to your team mid-battle. The VG and TCG are mostly non-overlapping magisteria, changing this would be foolish.

In my opinion the old maximum HP (I'm dating myself here, I know), which was 120, was perfect. It meant you didn't need that many single damage counters (the ones the kids tend to use because they come with the deck boxes) and because the more professional players only needed to use at most 2 dice per Pokémon. It makes everything a lot clearer and a lot more manageable.

Otaku said:
I wish there was a magical fix like tripling all HP scores (instead of say the rule changes we are given), but that would still be pretty hit or miss. When it comes to designing new cards, however, upping HP gives Pokémon more turns in play. Sounds scary if you think that just applies to Pokémon-EX but becomes nice when you remember that it applies to Evolving Basic Pokémon as well. The game becomes a lot better if going for that quick hit just isn't a good use of an attack early game; when you need to set-up because you just can't mindlessly bash your way through.
This is only true if the power creep didn't include attack power, which it quite obviously does. A 360HP Pokémon gets KO'd just as easily as a 120HP Pokémon if attack power is tripled as well.
And that's not all, if you only triple the HP (which wouldn't make it true to the games either, because attack power is also quite a bit higher there), your average game is liable to take at least twice, but probably over trice as long. Making sure donking is impossible and especially adding more actual strategy to the game (a direction they don't seem willing to take, at all) is in my opinion far more important than simply tripling HP.

I have no qualms with the rest of your post, but the first few paragraphs just seemed incredibly wrong and misguided.

You don't have to thank me, DNA.
 
Zygarde said:
Blui said:
I believe he means compared to the VGC, but then it's a stupid comment.

I guess he meant that HP in general is low compared to damage output, making Pokémon have extremely low stay power in general. Weakness doubling damage done (which in other card games would seem absurd) makes it even easier killing stuff.
If that's what Otaku meant, I share his opinion.

I also think that was his point and totally agree too. In this game, damage is done in multiples of ten and in such high numbers usually that the net effect is low survival of your cards. Really, most cards can't stand aggression for more than two turns, with many getting OHKO'ed even.
 
So... out of three who disagreed with me enough to comment (apologies if I left someone out), one "doesn't know where to begin", another just resorts to insults, and one actually tries to explain why s/he disagrees. Note that while Blui only insulted my statement... if you're not going to back it up, that isn't much better reasoning than insulting me. "You should run Deck X, and not Deck Y... because Deck Y is idiotic!" doesn't do much, does it?

If I am wrong, I certainly want to know. My general statement of HP scores in the TCG being too low is based on over a decade of observation, and while I've never gotten around to writing an article about it specifically, I far too often have cited it in my CotD reviews. Don't know the rules for this board well enough about linking/self promotion: just Google "Pokemon CotD Otaku" and you'll find me. Might be a bit harder to sort find exactly when I started explaining concepts that... were used by Heavenly Spoon to try and refute the point which I have (over the years) used the same arguments to support.

So to be clear, the differences between the mechanics of the TCG and the video game mean that the games cannot use identical HP scores. That is so obvious, I didn't realize I needed to state it. The reasons are many - the TCG is always a two-player game (when using official rules), while the video games involve a significant amount of single-player action. One can try to equate buying packs and trading for the TCG with some of the single player video game experience (as well as player to player trading there as well), but in the end there are some differences that can't be ignored... namely that you don't have a computer to keep track of the more complicated stats of the video games and run all the numbers, so dealing with numbers running from 1 to over 700 just for the HP isn't going to work.

I haven't bothered with a Pokémon main series video game since Pearl... and I haven't beaten the single player game since either Crystal or Yellow - every generation the elements that were bad or tolerable (due to hardware limitations) of the original Generation become more and more glaring for me. I bring this up not to start up a side debate, but so that if (when?) I get something wrong about video game mechanics, you know just to inform me and not assume I am lying to falsely prove my point.

You can't hit the Bench in the video games. You don't Evolve in the middle of a battle in the video games. You have a Defense and a Special Defense score and more complicated means of determining damage (both done and received), that the TCG cannot and does not use (I've been suggesting for years that TCG HP scores should be based on video game HP/DEF/S.DEF base stats, but to my knowledge nothing official has ever been said about this). You do start with access to all of your attacks (and can have up to four!) in the video games, but you also have a set PP score that requires Items to replenish and when it drains, that attack is gone... unlike TCG attacks which (unless the attack does something like discarding energy) can be used over and over again once powered up, until that Pokémon is removed from play.

Upping HP scores gives the designers more room, instead of compressing everything into a narrower range. We get a lot of "different name, same result" attacks because there isn't room for subtle differentiation, as well as HP scores that are the same because there is no room to distinguish them either, which results in more fillermon. Upping the HP on Evolving Pokémon (even without increasing the game's overall max HP) gives them more time to Evolve, and when you look at both the similarities and the differences between the TCG and video games (both for HP and for Evolution mechanics). If 150 HP is the score given to the Stage 2 and the "average" competitive deck easily busts out 90 damage attack, then give the Basic form 100 HP and the Stage 1 120 or 130. This is also important if we want a "fix" that takes into account the current card pool; some of my reasons for this suggestion vanish if we completely start over from scratch and follow key guidelines.

There is no physical law that forces damage output to keep pace with HP. In fact the evidence is the opposite; we've seen damage spike both in how much is done and for how much is required to do said damage without HP keeping pace. I actually would like damage (in some places) to go up so that attacks can be more varied and effects are easier to work in... but right now damage is far too high for the printed HP scores. That HP scores haven't shot up separate from damage output doesn't mean that it cannot be done. It may make it unlikely, but there is a difference.

TL;DR:If I am wrong, I would like it explained to me... without basing it on the arguments I've been applying on behalf of increasing HP scores for the last few years. ;-) The game was not balanced when it had lower HP scores because they were lower - the problems caused were just reduced to near nitpicking when we had fewer Pokémon to adapt to the TCG and because the game didn't have Pokémon that hit quite as hard, quite as fast during those years. If you want to keep iconic game mechanics like Evolution, attaching Energy, etc. then one of the many changes that is needed are adjusting the HP scores up... though regardless x2 Weakness had got to go. Don't forget to factor in the current card pool, as well as consider both the rules we have now, and what we had until the latest rules went into effect.
 
...which basically comes down to the fact that the TCG and VG are two separate and very distinct entities - which is exactly what Spoon just stated. Beyond the "6 Pokémon at once" aspect, you can't even compare the two.

I said I didn't know where to begin because I thought it was apparent that TCG and VG couldn't be compared. Fortunately, Spoon put it so eloquently that I couldn't have put it better myself.
Heavenly Spoon said:
You don't have to thank me, DNA.
But I will anyway. <3
 
Otaku said:
I've already dealt with the range argument a bit, but here we go again, I guess.
The dice/damage counters argument still stands, tripling the HP like you suggest would mean that your everyday old school Charizard would require up to 6 dice to keep track of its damage, or up to 7 stacks of 5 damage counters each. This is a quite honestly a logistical nightmare, especially for the little kids who seem to be more and more the target audience.
And having subtle variations in attack power seems pointless to me, of course there needs to be a range, but I see no reason why you'd ever need more than the old 10 to 120. 10 is the default low damage, 20 the upper bound for 1-energy attacks by basic Pokémon, and so on. Yes, a 90 damage attack wouldn't be able to 2HKO a 200 HP Pokémon while a rounded up 50 damage would be able to 2HKO a 100HP Pokémon, but I fail to see how these variations would have such a huge impact on strategic considerations. It makes victory by mathematics far more likely than a victory by skill the way I see it. A far better way of improving diversity in attacks is to actually add decent effects, instead of the boring attacks we've been getting recently. Your alternative to "different name, same result" attacks seems to be "different name, marginally different result," which doesn't sound like a solution at all.

And honestly, don't complain about me mentioning the VG when you're the one who started it. It was a horrible argument, I'm glad you agree.

If you want to meticulously keep track of numbers which are far higher than they need to be, Yu-Gi-Oh seems like a decent option, but in my experience Magic the Gathering with its printed maximum of 15 (which is a very extreme case) is a lot more strategic.

DNA said:
Heavenly Spoon said:
You don't have to thank me, DNA.
But I will anyway. <3
You're welcome. <3
 
meh... Might be just me but the card doesn't seem to be THAT strong... Sure, 230 HP is a lot but that's weakness is for... Auto paralysis is good too... but then there's switch and stuff like that...
The attack cost is big (so is the retreat cost) and it's only one attack which does 120, not that high for today's standards... You have to wait one turn until you can attack with the Mega card (assuming you already have regular Venusaur EX charged)... And as soon as people see Venusaur-EX on the table, they'll know it's because you'll play the Mega card (otherwise, why play Venusaur-EX?), they will immediately start attacking Venusaur-EX... by the time you get to attack with M-Venusaur-EX, it will probably be knocked out on the next turn...
Honestly, Mega cards are looking more like a gimmick than anything, specially with the one attack and attack name in the artwork issues... I like the artwork though...
 
The card is pretty good at first glance. As long s you can mega evolve first turn it could go something like: attach to active Virizion, mega evolve, next turn attach again and accelerate. But outside of that it's definitely a damper on the set up. The attack is amazing with Virbank it essentially guarantees a knockout. Without a form off switching involved. But only time will tell if this thing works. Can't wait to try it out.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 
The card is balanced (proof? half the thread thinks he's broken, half thinks he's unplayable).
The card art is pretty nice, imo. I don't really care about the letters being on it. It doesn't add to it in anyway, but I think people are exaggerating how much it takes away.
And 230 HP? Don't act like powercreep doesn't exist, people, you should be EXPECTING this to happen every time new cards are released.
All in all, I like it, and this is nothing to leave/quit the tcg for (as some people asininely described themselves doing, as they do with every change and update that occurs). That's my two bits.
 
DNA said:
...which basically comes down to the fact that the TCG and VG are two separate and very distinct entities - which is exactly what Spoon just stated. Beyond the "6 Pokémon at once" aspect, you can't even compare the two.

I said I didn't know where to begin because I thought it was apparent that TCG and VG couldn't be compared. Fortunately, Spoon put it so eloquently that I couldn't have put it better myself.
Heavenly Spoon said:
You don't have to thank me, DNA.
But I will anyway. <3

So M Venusaur EX has nothing to do with Mega Venusaur?

Evolution existing as a mechanic in the TCG has nothing to do with it also being a signature mechanic of the video games?

You most definitely can compare the two as I just demonstrated. That there are logical reasons for some differences does not mean there are no logical reasons for areas that function in a similar manner, nor that because one reason given for increasing HP scores was that it would allow some of the mechanics imported from the source material to function better means the entire argument boils down to "...because that is how it is handled in the video games."

Heavenly Spoon said:
Otaku said:
I've already dealt with the range argument a bit, but here we go again, I guess.
The dice/damage counters argument still stands, tripling the HP like you suggest would mean that your everyday old school Charizard would require up to 6 dice to keep track of its damage, or up to 7 stacks of 5 damage counters each. This is a quite honestly a logistical nightmare, especially for the little kids who seem to be more and more the target audience.

Thank you for clarifying by explaining the practical aspect of your argument. I still do not find it sufficiently convincing as to why Pokémon should never have more than 120 HP, but at least I understand your reasoning for this where before I did not. Something to consider is that the basic damage counter system has always been terrible; awkward to use, especially in a game where you find yourself retreating or promoting those cards with damage counters on them or by them.

So my counter proposal is... the game needs a better way to record damage. d6 are better than the damage counters, but not by much. If "damage counters" are going to remain as simple markers, then by default larger increments must become a standard component of the game. Indeed when my friends and I first started playing, we (admittedly dully) just assumed Poison markers were for a bigger increment (and once we realized the mistake... used something else to mark poison).

Using coins might be best for players in the USA; Pennies = 10, Nickels = 50 damage, Dimes = 100, Quarters = 250. I can live with a piece of paper recording damage as well - technically the same effort of record keeping would then provide better records, as there would be no question as to whether a Pokémon was accidentally KOed... though I doubt this would be tenable for younger players (though the preceding change angle then adds another useful life skill for the kids).

Heavenly Spoon said:
And having subtle variations in attack power seems pointless to me, of course there needs to be a range, but I see no reason why you'd ever need more than the old 10 to 120.

Because it hasn't been working lately if ever? I am skipping some of your comment because I would actually be interesting in discussing how you came by your damage guidelines, and present some arguments, but I believe this discussion is already complicated enough (and likely dangerously close to if not actually off topic) as is.


Heavenly Spoon said:
...but I fail to see how these variations would have such a huge impact on strategic considerations. It makes victory by mathematics far more likely than a victory by skill the way I see it.

"Math" is actually a skill, so I fail to understand your complaint to the point that I assumed it should be required for victory in this game, at least at the tournament level.

Heavenly Spoon said:
A far better way of improving diversity in attacks is to actually add decent effects, instead of the boring attacks we've been getting recently. Your alternative to "different name, same result" attacks seems to be "different name, marginally different result," which doesn't sound like a solution at all.

Fair point. I don't believe I explained myself well enough; because I do consider the capacity to plan ahead and compute how damage is most likely to accrue ("math") as important strategic elements of game play in this TCG and all others I've played. Allowing for greater variation in attacks, even subtle variation, is a good thing because it sets the foundation for more significant variation. If you want "decent" effects, consider that not all "good" effects need to be "major" effects, and that "major" effects can simply be multiple lesser effects stacked upon each other.

As is, the current choices tend to be "hit hard" or "hit nearly as hard with an effect"... and only a few effects are worth the decrease in damage.

Heavenly Spoon said:
And honestly, don't complain about me mentioning the VG when you're the one who started it. It was a horrible argument, I'm glad you agree.

This really could have used a specific quote because I am not sure what you are talking about. The closest I can come is where I levied what I believed was a fair criticism: I advocated for higher HP scores and one (of multiple) reason was that the video games use higher HP scores and certain mechanics that have been adapted from said video games don't work as well with the TCG level HP scores. I felt that it was misleading to construe that as me claiming the TCG had to use near identical scores to the video game for only that reason, and portraying me as being ignorant of the differences between the two.

It was quite vexing for someone who has spent years explaining otherwise, even if it was not on this particular thread.

Heavenly Spoon said:
If you want to meticulously keep track of numbers which are far higher than they need to be, Yu-Gi-Oh seems like a decent option, but in my experience Magic the Gathering with its printed maximum of 15 (which is a very extreme case) is a lot more strategic.

The entire point was that the numbers were not far higher than they need to be. I cannot speak for certain about the modern game of Yu-Gi-Oh, but it was apparent when I played that there were numbers far higher than need be with numbers under 100 (or parts of larger numbers under 100) rarely mattering... and the main example of them being significant would be covered by rules already required for dealing with numbers of less than one.

Plus... Pokémon also does that; everything is in even units of 10, which means all scores could be divided by 10 with no consequence.
 
I don't feel like messing around with quotes for what is such a pointless discussion, so I'll just quickly address a few points:

Damage counters and especially dice are in my opinion quite a decent way of tracking damage, especially because the game uses a lot of retreating. If you retreat, you simply move the cards and the damage counters with it. I honestly don't see how paper would make the game situation more obvious in any way. You'd always have to consult the paper rather than just look at the card to see how much damage it has. And with different damage counters for high values you're still doing far more counting than you'd need to.

I fail to see how the old 10-120 scale hasn't been working. The guideline I've assumed is based on the original cards, where cards like Machop and Hitmonchan had 1 energy for 20 attacks, which was as strong as you'd get. Anything else did 10 or 10 and a flip for more. How did this system not work? You still had some mathful planning, Alakazam 3HKOs an electabuzz, but if you managed to get 10 on it one way or another, you'd be able to take it down in 2. This also means that Electabuzz had to be careful using its second attack, as this could put it into 2HKO range. Either your hypothetical scenario reduces tripled-HP Electabuzz' self-inflicted damage to 20, which would get rid of the risk factor, or increases it to 40, which wouldn't make a difference. In this case your added nuance would either not matter or actually reduce strategic considerations. Now I'd have to do some statistical analysis to see when adding nuance increases or decreases strategic considerations, but I feel confident assuming the difference your system would add wouldn't make up for the tediousness it caused, if the effect is even positive to begin with.

Math is a skill, but it's not strategy. Planning ahead is great, but in my opinion planning is usually things like "will I be able to attack again next turn?", "do I have to retreat?", "Should I send this Pokémon in now or wait and boost it some more?", etc. Not "will doing these things make me narrowly miss KOing this thing or not?". 10 HP left scenarios in your system would happen more because of dumb luck than anything else. If your Pokémon did an extra 3.3333333 damage, you would've won, which just seems arbitrary to me.

I was advocating that, yes, the video games use higher HP points because they have different mechanics. Also, it might be worth noting that it's a computer doing the damage counting in the games, which by default allows a far wider range without hurting logistics. Although I'd dare argue that the VG would be more strategic if the ranges were more defined, as it would allow for better planning and would get rid of those 1HP left events which often mean the difference between victory and defeat.

And the Yu-Gi-Oh! thing referred to the odd card with 1930 defence points (e.g. Castle of Dark Illusions), which I think only serves to annoy those who don't use a calculator to keep track of remaining life points. Honestly, my favourite living card game (The Lord of the Rings) uses attack values ranging from 0 to 4 and I don't think I've ever spent as much time planning anything as when I play the game.
 
And against all odds. the hilariously bloated Mega EX designed to water the eyes of 5 year olds is sparking intelligent discussion
 
I feel like Crushing Hammer with Sableye spam could stop it cold. Nothing stings a high attack cost like getting rid of an energy every turn before you can set up. Also, the turn stopper really hurts it. If that wasn't in place, it would obviously be much more powerful. To be honest, I kinda like the "CRISIS VINE" on the card, but that's just me. I tend to like ridiculously over-the-top things like that.
 
Top