(1) Rules Changes Coming with X/Y TCG [9/27]

[Blah]

Alright, I have to address the first turn rule here.

Unless the complaint is that the first turn should have been balanced in a different way, I cannot understand why people are complaining. This is something the game has needed ever since they got rid of the no trainers rule in the first place. There HAS to be a disadvantage to going first. Otherwise, the 100% advantage just adds dumb luck to the game.

The main complaints I've seen over the internet are that this ruling is unfair because the player going first should be able to use set up attacks, and that it's unfair because it gives stage 2's a big advantage.

1. No. You should not be able to use set up attacks. Just because your deck uses Call for Family or Victini EX doesn't make it fair. The point is to give some kind of disadvantage to the player going first, not give a disadvantage to players who use decks that can do lots of damage on the first turn. People are thinking this ruling is meant to make Stage 2's more viable, and thereby cff like attacks should be allowed. It isn't; the ruling is meant to attempt to make the first turns a little more equal no matter what deck you're playing.

2. This arguement is slightly more reasonable, but just because Stage 2's aren't affected much doesn't change that some kind of first turn disadvantage wasn't badly needed.

Maybe this wasn't the best execution of a first turn rule, but we needed SOMETHING. And considering how stupid the first turn was for the past two years, I'm not complaining. This will by no means hurt the game; just maybe there was a way of improving the game more than this rule did.

About the catcher errata, I'm going to have a reserved outlook on it until I see the XY sets. Complaining about it is pointless when we haven't even seen the format it's going to be in (not to mention that there are advantages to having catcher see less play, but again, I'm going to not talk about this until we see the new sets).

 

[drixiss]

Honestly, I like all of these rule changes.

Pokemon catcher was OP. It made every stage 2 nearly unplayable, aside from Blastoise, and the only real decks seem to just be a certain array of basic Pokemon that you think counters the meta the best. Plasma is all basics, Darkrai/Sableye is all basics aside from the occasional Garbodor, VirGen is all basics aside from the occasional drifblim, suicune/terrakion is all basics...Everything is basic Pokemon. There are no evolutions, and although this can be linked to EX's being stronger than most stage 2's, I don't think that catcher was helping very much! Making catcher require a coin flip is basically a polite way of banning it, which I'm fine with. At least Sableye decks can still play 1 or 2 of them and bring them back with junk hunt.

Not being able to attack first turn seems perfectly fine to me. There HAS to be a downside to going first. And now that catcher is out of the format, maybe you can choose to go first, drop your basics and tropical beach, and then be able to rare candy into something cool when your opponent has only taken one turn. Setup moves are kind of in the past now, anyways. There's Junk hunt I guess, but it's not like it has that much power turn 1 anyways. I rarely see people play call for family effects, even with plenty of nice ones for 1 colorless available. Raiden Knuckle could be kind of seen as a turn 1 setup move, but it also does a bunch of damage, and is kind of unfairly powerful to do turn 1, much like Mewtwo EX's X-ball, Tornadus EX's Blow Through, Landorus EX's Hammerhead, and a plethora of OP turn 1 colress machine-fueled attacks.

As for the Juniper/Sycamore thing...I dunno, I mean they definitely just should have come up with a different supporter, but I don't really care. We have Skyla, Juniper, N, Bianca, and Colress, so it doesn't really matter.

The only thing that I'm afraid of with these changes, is that a Blastoise deck with 4 tool scrappers might just be untouchable now. Also, Mr. Mime is going to be a 1-of in every single deck, instead of just most of them.

 

[Otaku]

Alright, I have to address the first turn rule here.

Unless the complaint is that the first turn should have been balanced in a different way, I cannot understand why people are complaining.

...

Isn't it clear that is exactly the complaint? Well, perhaps with a little bit of "this isn't really fixing anything." We don't know if it will actually make going first "balanced"; I remember people saying how going first was going to be so terrible due to some of the past first turn rules and... it never really proved true. This rule lessens the likelihood of being "donked" and hurts decks relying on that strategy... everything else may be able to adjust.

e.g. Going first may still be a huge advantage because you get everything but an attack and we know decks can be built where that isn't a drawback.

This is something the game has needed ever since they got rid of the no trainers rule in the first place. There HAS to be a disadvantage to going first. Otherwise, the 100% advantage just adds dumb luck to the game.

Hold up: the games does indeed need something to balance out going first. Given the track record of the game I have no reason to believe that this is going to fix the problem. Here are three quick options:

1) Reword the Evolution rules so that a player may not Evolve a Pokémon that wasn't in play before the end of the opponent's last turn. Player going first still can't Evolve on his/her first turn (only now it isn't an exception to the rule), but the player going second could. Probably not a good idea with the card pool.

2) Require the player going first to play down an extra Prize - this should work reasonably well with the current card pool, though it makes N a little nicer for said player.

3) Start releasing cards that reward a player for going second, and make it so that the player that wins the coin toss gets to choose whether to go first or second.

The main complaints I've seen over the internet are that this ruling is unfair because the player going first should be able to use set up attacks, and that it's unfair because it gives stage 2's a big advantage.

"Unfair" is not the correct word. Unbalancing may be, as we don't know how this will affect specific cards. I know some people are oversimplifying (I may have as well) but it isn't Stage 2 Pokémon in general but specific Pokémon and/or decks that benefit. Deluge decks are the primary example as they often don't attack first turn anyway and now are safe from being donked if they open with just Squirtle... which was supposed to be a balancing agent for the power of the deck.

1. No. You should not be able to use set up attacks. Just because your deck uses Call for Family or Victini EX doesn't make it fair. The point is to give some kind of disadvantage to the player going first, not give a disadvantage to players who use decks that can do lots of damage on the first turn. People are thinking this ruling is meant to make Stage 2's more viable, and thereby cff like attacks should be allowed. It isn't; the ruling is meant to attempt to make the first turns a little more equal no matter what deck you're playing.

You give no actual reasons for your statement so congrats; if you think your opposition is wrong, now you two are just hollering your opinion. For some of us, we try to justify our opinions by giving analysis. Over the 15 years I've been a part of this game, it was most balanced when set-up attacks were important. It prevents the game from being about fast KOs... which the rule itself doesn't prevent: the rule discourages donks, but a deck that can OHKO everything starting with its second turn will still do so and decrease the likelihood of seeing "higher" forms of strategy.

2. This arguement is slightly more reasonable, but just because Stage 2's aren't affected much doesn't change that some kind of first turn disadvantage wasn't badly needed.

Maybe this wasn't the best execution of a first turn rule, but we needed SOMETHING. And considering how stupid the first turn was for the past two years, I'm not complaining. This will by no means hurt the game; just maybe there was a way of improving the game more than this rule did.

That is an evil standard: "something must be done" does not mean that "doing anything" is automatically good. I've seen that standard put to use on more serious issues, and I am not kidding, its used for evil: "Never let a good tragedy go to waste!". I know you weren't advocating such a thing, but you are using it to justify a questionable decision. Remember why the old first turn rules disappeared?

Because they don't like having unique first turn rules. Why should we expect this rule to last? While it reduces one concern (donks), we don't even know if it will balance going first or second.

About the catcher errata, I'm going to have a reserved outlook on it until I see the XY sets. Complaining about it is pointless when we haven't even seen the format it's going to be in (not to mention that there are advantages to having catcher see less play, but again, I'm going to not talk about this until we see the new sets).

If you can't use the history of the game, plus some current playtesting, to come up with a reasonable analysis of how the errata to Pokémon Catcher will impact the game... perhaps you are the one that shouldn't be commenting? That includes a comment stating you're reserving judgment.

I could be completely wrong about this, and I've tried to mention that (I am having this discussion in two other places - its easy to think one has said something when one hasn't). Barring some radical shift caused by the new cards, this is a terrible errata. For one thing Pokémon Catcher was never the problem. It was the overly fast overpowered attackers that didn't get an errata or failed to rotate out.

 

[Celebi23]

Welp, it might be time to start playing again. Those were basically the two major rule changes I was looking for. I'll wait until I see the actual cards to decide if it's worth my time, but I definitely like the direction things are heading. I notice that there's some opposition to these rulings, so maybe as a veteran player I can explain why they are good for the game.

The first turn rule: Without some disadvantage to going first, as people have said, there is no reason not to go first. This puts one player at an unfair advantage and decides a lot of games. Think about it... how many games have you gone second and either had your setup stopped by "cheap" fast attackers or lost by a one-attack window? This doesn't necessarily mean that you're a worse player (although if these occurrences are frequent, you might want to rethink your deck choice). It just means that your opponent started with an advantage you could not control.

So why no attacking on the first turn rather than a different nerf? Most obviously, this ruling should more or less put a permanent end to donks, which were also a deciding factor in games that were (for the most part) out of a player's control. However, this also seems to be a good balance. The player who goes first gets to use the first items and will probably get the first evolutions while the player going second can use the first attack to either take the first prize or get set up further.

Pokemon Catcher: The effect of Catcher isn't necessarily broken in itself. However, anybody who goes back and plays a few games from the original ex series formats or early DP formats can see why it needed to go. In those formats, players could consistently execute their strategy game after game because there were no strategies that were as fast and, by extension, disruptive as decks like Plasma in today's format. Far, far too many games in recent formats were decided by who got the better opening hand because that, alongside Catcher, was all you needed to destroy a lot of decks' setups and strategies. This isn't necessarily a problem with Catcher itself, but rather a problem with the broken combination of Catcher and first or second turn powerhouse attacks. Hopefully some slower new setup decks can thrive now that Catcher is nerfed.

That said, the nerf perhaps isn't the best it could be. As soon as I saw the new text, I thought of the beginning of HS-on, where Reversal was in most decks. Back then we had Vileplume to keep it in check, but this format doesn't have as strong or as versatile of item lock. So, if people choose to play a lot of Reversal in every deck, it could be a similar - if not worse - problem as we already have. However, if this is enough to keep it out of most decks (and I hope it will be since there's no Junk Arm in this format), the luck involved in the new text won't be a problem.

And the third "rule" doesn't actually change gameplay so it's not really worth arguing about.

 

[SynxS1N]

I agree with celebi. I'm hoping these changes will bring about a more diverse format. I missed out on most of the DP era and it seemed like it was a lot of fun with many different decks (luxchomp, dialgachomp, sableye etc.) having a shot at being on top and Tier 2 decks were more than passing fads. Things are a lot less interesting these days.

 

[Otaku]

I agree with celebi. I'm hoping these changes will bring about a more diverse format. I missed out on most of the DP era and it seemed like it was a lot of fun with many different decks (luxchomp, dialgachomp, sableye etc.) having a shot at being on top and Tier 2 decks were more than passing fads. Things are a lot less interesting these days.

Where as I disagree with celebi because I don't believe he (or you) have made an accurate analysis of the situation. Of course, X&Y may "fix everything", but with the information we don't have, the new rules indicate even more sloppy game design and management. I haven't been able to test, but based on my understanding of the game I don't expect things to get "better", just be "tweaked" by the new rules.

Making it so that going first or going second is a legitimate decision is something that needs to happen, but we also know from past experience that the-powers-that-be don't like having "special first turn rules"... so that should be a move of last resort. Most of what this rule "fixes" are things that are only "broken" because the-powers-that-be made them that way. A shift in card design does the same thing once the current cards rotate out.

We don't know yet if going second is going to be just as good as going first, and I'd rather they found a way to make the rules more homogenous while addressing this concern; cards that reward going second is one option. Just requiring the player go first lay down an extra prize (or player going second gets to take one "for free" right away). Making it so that the condition for Evolving is that a Pokémon had to be before the end of your opponent's previous turn, thus allowing the player going second to Evolve while the player going first cannot, and making it so that technically there is no special first/second turn Evolution rules.

Pokémon Catcher is not a problem. The actual cited abuses happen because of the overpowered, overly fast Pokémon of the format, not Pokémon Catcher. Nerfing it may in fact strengthen those Pokémon, same as with the new first turn rules. What I do know is that now aggressive decks have to give you a turn but also get a turn of protection as well, and thus time to set-up to make sure the first hit is still a OHKO even against Pokémon-EX.

 

[Celebi23]

I don't see where your argument differs from mine, aside from you wanting a different nerf on the first turn. But we both agree that something should have been done and it seems like we both agree that this wasn't a bad option. Can you explain why you disagree with me?

 

[SynxS1N]

Same here. All I said was that I hope these rule changes will help bring about a more diverse format. I also never claimed catcher was the problem but as it stands Big Ex's aren't the ones getting changed, so we'll have to deal with whatever changes are coming to us accordingly. Regardless of how many of the games imperfections we can point out. We can only hope for the best.

 

[Riskbreakers]

I don't see where your argument differs from mine, aside from you wanting a different nerf on the first turn. But we both agree that something should have been done and it seems like we both agree that this wasn't a bad option. Can you explain why you disagree with me?

He's probably disagreeing with you in terms of the Catcher Nerf. You support the idea of Catcher being broken, Otaku is saying that Catcher isn't a problem.

I would agree with Otaku with anything that has to involve Catcher though, Pokemon didn't assess the situation properly.

Another problem lies with you guys saying that the good thing about DP is that you can consistently execute your strategy game after game. This idea is both good and bad at the same time. It makes deckbuilding a bit boring because you don't think of the negatives of running specific lines. It's not the case now where you are going to think of something because running stuff like Blastoise would risk your Squirtles getting CatcherKO'd. Someone already said it here that it really is unfair to see someone do a broken setup without having the power to disrupt or stop it like using Trap Cards in YGO, Counterspell in MTG and Rearguard hate/retiring in Vanguard. Bench sitters need a penalty for just sitting there and Catcher is the answer to it and now it's nerfed.

Last note, I am a DP-era player as well and I loved to have seen Catcher in that format. The amount of bench sitting Claydols and Uxies were so annoying.

 

[SynxS1N]

I don't see where your argument differs from mine, aside from you wanting a different nerf on the first turn. But we both agree that something should have been done and it seems like we both agree that this wasn't a bad option. Can you explain why you disagree with me?

He's probably disagreeing with you in terms of the Catcher Nerf. You support the idea of Catcher being broken, Otaku is saying that Catcher isn't a problem.

I would agree with Otaku with anything that has to involve Catcher though, Pokemon didn't assess the situation properly.

Another problem lies with you guys saying that the good thing about DP is that you can consistently execute your strategy game after game. This idea is both good and bad at the same time. It makes deckbuilding a bit boring because you don't think of the negatives of running specific lines. It's not the case now where you are going to think of something because running stuff like Blastoise would risk your Squirtles getting CatcherKO'd. Someone already said it here that it really is unfair to see someone do a broken setup without having the power to disrupt or stop it like using Trap Cards in YGO, Counterspell in MTG and Rearguard hate/retiring in Vanguard. Bench sitters need a penalty for just sitting there and Catcher is the answer to it and now it's nerfed.

I see both sides of the story. You're absolutely correct about catcher being a good counter for bench sitters/basic set-ups, but this also the one of the reasons stage 2's don't do very well. (and before otaku says anything) Yes it may well be Big EX's that make it hard for stage 2's to survive but the fact of the matter is that they can't just ban/nerf every EX (or at least they wouldn't). So the only option was to make them safer on the bench and that's what the rule accomplishes.

 

[Otaku]

I don't see where your argument differs from mine, aside from you wanting a different nerf on the first turn. But we both agree that something should have been done and it seems like we both agree that this wasn't a bad option. Can you explain why you disagree with me?

Besides what Riskbreakers said, the new first turn rules aren't really fixing what is wrong... they are bypassing it. Overpowered, overly fast big Basic attackers? Just don't let them attack. Never mind that one of the better features of the game, set-up attacks, are now functionally gone. I remember formats where it was rare for either player to attack for damage first turn because set-up was more important.

It is a bit like having a broken window. You can fix it so that you can use it as a window... or you can board it up. The rules fix is the latter.

 

[Celebi23]

Pokemon Catcher: The effect of Catcher isn't necessarily broken in itself... This isn't necessarily a problem with Catcher itself, but rather a problem with the broken combination of Catcher and first or second turn powerhouse attacks. Hopefully some slower new setup decks can thrive now that Catcher is nerfed.

Now that that's (hopefully) cleared up, I also agree that limiting the power of fast attacks would be a better long-term fix, although the first turn rule as it stood before now wouldn't necessarily be fair even then. Additionally, the analogy of the window doesn't work in this case since "fixing the window" would take at least a year of refinement while boarding the window up is instant. A hard rotation to XY-on isn't practical so there's not much that can be done (within reason) about the already existing big basics until it's practical to rotate them out. However, because they're so powerful and new cards have to be relevant, the card designers are caught in a trap where they have to keep on making overpowered and fast cards. Yes, it would be great if the card designers were so talented that they could just design balanced, interesting, and skill-based cards that didn't require fundamental rule changes to check their power. However, since we don't have that, I see the rule change as something better than what we had before and hopefully sufficient enough to bring some balance to the game, and I'm not going to complain about that. After all, it's better to have a boarded window than no window at all.

@Riskbreakers- I'd argue that deckbuilding was also more interesting back in the ex days. This is a combination of the fact that there was a lot more free space in decks for techs and the fact that there were a lot less cards that were always good. There's no reason not to run 4 Catcher, a bland Energy line, tons of supporters, etc. in current decks. However, back then, cards like Pow! Hand Extension and Jirachi were horrible in some situations (when winning and late game respectively) while they were game-breaking when the time was right. In other words, the negative was built into the card itself rather than in into its vulnerability to Catcher.

 

[Otaku]

Additionally, the analogy of the window doesn't work in this case since "fixing the window" would take at least a year of refinement while boarding the window up is instant.

Why doesn't that fit? Not trying to derail, but I did consider that and figured it was evident; there are other reasons to board up a broken window instead of repairing it, but they are all similarly applicable:

1) Time - its faster than replacing it proper.
2) Expense/difficulty - its easier than replacing it proper and takes less effort.
3) Giving up - you don't think you can fix it or keep it from breaking again.

I think the Pokémon TCG should be better than that. It may have gotten lost in another post or on another board (I beg pardon, but I'm having this conversation on two other boards), but the only way this change is acceptable is as a stopgap measure; it is being instituted until the card pool adjusts to where long term solutions will work. In that case, though there is a different problem:

Why didn't they do this at the beginning of the previous format (if not sooner): the issues were apparent in HGSS-On, after all! There is also the fact this is the fourth or fifth set of first turn rules the game has had. The TCG is entirely under Pokémon's control - there is nothing that isn't their responsibility so if changes are warranted, that's their failure. Leaving "bad" rules in place isn't good either, but if they are going to fix them, they need to fix them correctly.

 

[Riskbreakers]

Restrict EXs to two per deck. That should make it more fun. It's not a popular choice but it should severely hamper their dominance. Still doesn't really affect Blastoise all too much though.

 

[Otaku]

Restrict EXs to two per deck. That should make it more fun. It's not a popular choice but it should severely hamper their dominance. Still doesn't really affect Blastoise all too much though.

Do you mean no more than two copies of a Pokémon-EX or no more than two total? I don't know how "user friendly" that will be since the text isn't already on them and surprisingly, it is trickier to realize you've got three Pokémon-EX versus two Ace Spec cards. It also turns the Pokémon-EX into a kind of "luck" element. Winning comes down to who can get their Pokémon-EX out first and get it back out over and over again. Better than the same scenario in a game like Yu-Gi-Oh but not as balancing as such an effect would be in Magic: The Gathering (I think).

Being limited to two copies of each Pokémon-EX would hurt most decks a little, but only certain ones really need a third copy of a specific Pokémon-EX. I figure you did mean no more than two Pokémon-EX total. That will definitely change the face of the metagame, but I doubt it will make things "better". There are enough strong, big Basic Pokémon that can step in to pick up the slack (especially if the few we lost to rotation are reprinted). It isn't a bad idea, though; honestly strikes me as better than nerfing Pokémon Catcher and on par with the new first turn rule. Some current decks would be destroyed, all would have to adjust, and a few new would pop up.

It is sad though; the Pokémon-EX mechanic is really good! The problem isn't the idea, but how poorly it was implemented. Remember all of the Pokémon-EX we don't play because they lack Abilities or attacks we can make use of first turn?

 

[SynxS1N]

Restrict EXs to two per deck. That should make it more fun. It's not a popular choice but it should severely hamper their dominance. Still doesn't really affect Blastoise all too much though.

A solid suggestion. I don't know that Pokemon would go for it but it'd be cool to see how such a change would affect the metagame.

 

[Riskbreakers]

Restrict EXs to two per deck. That should make it more fun. It's not a popular choice but it should severely hamper their dominance. Still doesn't really affect Blastoise all too much though.

A solid suggestion. I don't know that Pokemon would go for it but it'd be cool to see how such a change would affect the metagame.

Pokemon would never go for it. That would badly affect their sales. It's really sad since this applies to ANY card game. The most balancing moves would just end up hurting their sales a lot.

Most banlists/restrictions are both influenced by money and broken-ness of card,. Just ask Konami lol.

Otaku, I meant restricting two total. There is enough tutor and draw in this game to get those EXs out. Ultra/Heavy/Plasma Ball, Comp Search among others that can search out EXs.

They could have just made EXs Evolved Pokemon like before. It's just that it won't sell at all because Legendary Pokemon EXs are going to attract the kiddies more than let's say, Chandelure EX or Watchog EX

 

[Otaku]

Otaku, I meant restricting two total. There is enough tutor and draw in this game to get those EXs out. Ultra/Heavy/Plasma Ball, Comp Search among others that can search out EXs.

They could have just made EXs Evolved Pokemon like before. It's just that it won't sell at all because Legendary Pokemon EXs are going to attract the kiddies more than let's say, Chandelure EX or Watchog EX

Except why should we want Pokémon-EX that are anything but Legendary Pokémon? We tried something almost identical and it ultimately didn't work (but the rest of the game had enough going to compensate).

I played in the Pokémon-ex (that is, the older ones) era; it wasn't balanced. The new Pokémon-EX were a way for Legendary Pokémon to be as powerful in the TCG as they are in the video games, but without being overpowered like in the video games. The concept was still good; pump them up but with a double Prize penalty. The problem was that they didn't follow the guidelines I talked about earlier for balancing Stages:

1) Few of the Pokémon-EX that see competitive play lack attacks or Abilities that are useful to amazing first turn. What is more, the attacks don't just do damage, but do it extraordinarily well.

2) Most Evolving Pokémon are still terrible.

Making traditional Evolutions into Pokémon-EX would just make them dominant... like they were until "the next big thing" booted them in the older formats... unless they weren't powered up to the point that they were worth the hassle, in which case they'd be just as "successful" as most powerful-but-barely-played regular Evolutions. Turning Evolutions into Basic Pokémon-EX just completely removes a key mechanic of Pokémon: Evolving.

 

[Teal]

Why is every talking like there is no penalty for bench-sitters anymore... >__> Decks can still run "Reversals" OR people can start teching Genesect EX & Plasma Energy into decks. Seeing how freaking good the effect of Catcher is, an ability with activation cards seems like a more fair way to execute it anyway! Besides, if you play Genesect as your new Catcher, there are even ways to get those catchers back now (Shadow Triad). AND you don't know what kind of trainers, supporters, abilities and ATTACKERS X&Y introduce! Even Ace Specs may still be a thing. I might have said this before... if Ace Specs are still a thing, I could definitely see Gust of Wind / Catcher return as one.

 

[Otaku]

Why is every talking like there is no penalty for bench-sitters anymore... >__>

What is left? They eat up a Bench space?

Decks can still run "Reversals"...

Yes, but now each copy has a 50% chance of failure before factoring in other card effects. So for example, instead of using Pokémon Catcher to force up and OHKO a Squirtle once per turn, four turns in a row, it is all based on the coin flips. It may be 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 times you can do it (before card recycling effects). What is more, you may have to commit resources to this tactic before you know the result of the Pokémon Catcher flip.

If you weren't skilled enough to win a match or an event when it was a sure thing for your opponent, now you might be able to win via luck due to the coin flips. Granted, for the most part I would only apply this to decks that already make good use of Bench-sitters, like Deluge decks.

...OR people can start teching Genesect EX & Plasma Energy into decks.

No they can't. Even allowing a generous definition for "tech" to include adding two different cards to you deck, one copy of each isn't going to cut it. The exception being a deck already running three or four Plasma Energy, which indeed could tech in a copy of Genesect EX.

Seeing how freaking good the effect of Catcher is, an ability with activation cards seems like a more fair way to execute it anyway! Besides, if you play Genesect as your new Catcher, there are even ways to get those catchers back now (Shadow Triad).

A card can be "good" and still balanced. The effect of Pokémon Catcher has proven so good because we have overly fast, overpowered attackers that make up nearly the entire competitive card pool of the format. Pokémon Catcher is just a "reverse Switch; if the format was such that playing Switch generated Prize advantage because of other cards that still generated Prize advantage without Switch, that wouldn't make Switch the problem. That is the situation of Pokémon Catcher.

Using Genesect EX and its Red Signal Ability can be a pretty steep cost as it can only use Plasma Energy past the first to meet Energy discard requirements (...that you need to run G Booster to have). You're out a Special Energy card you can't search the deck for (save universal search like Computer Search) and your manual Energy attachment for the turn. It is more costly, but I do not believe it is "more fair" because the previous option was already "fair".

AND you don't know what kind of trainers, supporters, abilities and ATTACKERS X&Y introduce! Even Ace Specs may still be a thing. I might have said this before... if Ace Specs are still a thing, I could definitely see Gust of Wind / Catcher return as one.

It would be a very underpowered Ace Spec, akin to Master Ball. As for new cards being introduced, some of us have been at this for almost 15 years. Doesn't mean they won't surprise me, but it also means I have an idea of what to expect.