To address DNA I wouldn't call my durant rouge. I would consider my levanny and liligant to be rouge though.
(2) BW5 Commercial's Cards, New Article [3/1]
- Thread starter Water Pokémon Master
- Start date
All I'm saying is, the dragon cards with the multi energy costs are awesome. Those who couldn't handle these cards need to practice in the minors, so they can join the big leagues. There is nothing wrong with the dragon type, other than the attacks maybe should be more powerful, or maybe they shouldn't name it the dragon type, and it should be the multicolor type, and put dragons in the multicolor type, much like how colorless has normal and flying pokemon.
Dragons are weak to dragons, so, assuming that all dragons have multi energy attacks, then if your dragon gets defeated by your opponent's dragon, and you are complaining about how hard it is to even powerup that multi energy attack, then how come your opponent defeated your dragon with a multi energy attack. Ok, fine, maybe there is a dragon with only {W} for an attack and only {M} for an attack, but, c'mon man, it is just as hard for your opponent to even power up his dragon attack to defeat your dragon. If your opponent is better at doing it, then obvious your opponent knows how to use dragons, and you don't.
I bring up magic a lot, because they have the same problem, and it isn't gameplay I am talking about, it is what cards they can run on which decks. They run mono color, 2 color, 3 color decks easily, and their decks make it to the top, but nope, pokemon players can't even run a 2 or 3 energy type deck, as if it is foreign to them. The problem with running mono type deck, is you are going to get owned if you are playing against an opponent that has a type advantage to it. Normally, most grass types are weak to fire. Most fire types are weak to water. Most water types are weak to lightning, while some are weak to grass or steel. Lightning is weak to fightning. Psychic is mostly weak to darkness. Fighting is more diverse in that some are weak to grass, some weak to water, some weak to psychic. Darkness is all weak to fighting, and metal is all weak to fire. So if you run a mono fire deck, and your opponent runs water, and something else, then you are screwed. Consistency doesn't matter at this point. If you run a lightning fire deck, you at least have a chance of salvaging your game, because your opponent would get owned by your lightning cards. Decks that use only one type will net you the attacks you want faster, but decks that run more than one type is more flexible, in which opponents it could defeat. Just like magic, someone running mono red would get killed by someone who has cards with protection from red, or has a red hoser. Hoser is a term in magic that is used to describe a card that specifically targets specific cards, so an enemy color hoser, like deathmark, is a hoser, because it targets black's enemy colors, such as white and green, and won't work on red, blue, black, and colorless cards.
Dragons are weak to dragons, so, assuming that all dragons have multi energy attacks, then if your dragon gets defeated by your opponent's dragon, and you are complaining about how hard it is to even powerup that multi energy attack, then how come your opponent defeated your dragon with a multi energy attack. Ok, fine, maybe there is a dragon with only {W} for an attack and only {M} for an attack, but, c'mon man, it is just as hard for your opponent to even power up his dragon attack to defeat your dragon. If your opponent is better at doing it, then obvious your opponent knows how to use dragons, and you don't.
Skeleton Liar said:
I bring up magic a lot, because they have the same problem, and it isn't gameplay I am talking about, it is what cards they can run on which decks. They run mono color, 2 color, 3 color decks easily, and their decks make it to the top, but nope, pokemon players can't even run a 2 or 3 energy type deck, as if it is foreign to them. The problem with running mono type deck, is you are going to get owned if you are playing against an opponent that has a type advantage to it. Normally, most grass types are weak to fire. Most fire types are weak to water. Most water types are weak to lightning, while some are weak to grass or steel. Lightning is weak to fightning. Psychic is mostly weak to darkness. Fighting is more diverse in that some are weak to grass, some weak to water, some weak to psychic. Darkness is all weak to fighting, and metal is all weak to fire. So if you run a mono fire deck, and your opponent runs water, and something else, then you are screwed. Consistency doesn't matter at this point. If you run a lightning fire deck, you at least have a chance of salvaging your game, because your opponent would get owned by your lightning cards. Decks that use only one type will net you the attacks you want faster, but decks that run more than one type is more flexible, in which opponents it could defeat. Just like magic, someone running mono red would get killed by someone who has cards with protection from red, or has a red hoser. Hoser is a term in magic that is used to describe a card that specifically targets specific cards, so an enemy color hoser, like deathmark, is a hoser, because it targets black's enemy colors, such as white and green, and won't work on red, blue, black, and colorless cards.
Z
zephidel
@signofzeta: most players do not want to run multiple types is because of they are beaten by more consistent/faster/single colored decks. just look at the top tiered decks, most of them only run 1 color
Darkrai909 said:
What he meant was that you spelled it wrong. It's "rogue", not "rouge" ("red" in french).
Metalizard said:
Lol maybe thats what I meant jk i just cant spell but no I'm sure he knew what i meant you on the other hand are just bustin my chops.
speaking of rouge decks, my deck is rot.
I also like my Barry White, Matt Leblanc, and my Stephen Weiss deck, because everybody knows that the most consistent deck is a 100% colorless deck.
I also like my Barry White, Matt Leblanc, and my Stephen Weiss deck, because everybody knows that the most consistent deck is a 100% colorless deck.
Geez upright :/ ....anywho on topic do people really think where getting a dragon energy that acts as a prism energy or will they just always have multi types for costs I would really enjoy a basic dragon energy.
Well its just the first set and tpci has done some stranger things.
@signofzeta Alright. At this point, it just seems like you're being a troll. (And if you are, good job. You got me, and probably some other people. lol) But on the off chance that you aren't, did you even read everything I said? I mean, yeah, I said a lot, and that's a pain in the butt to get through. But if you're this adamant to prove some sort of point, you can't skim over things. Like this.
This was addressed in more ways than one. CaKE was a top tier deck (using Water and Metal) and so was 6 Corners (requiring a bunch of different types of energies). In fact, the winning deck of last year's World Championships was Magneboar (using Fire and Lightning). So now you really have no excuse to keep saying Pokemon players can't deal with multi energy. Now moving on to... whatever this is:
Many things wrong here (especially the sentence that I made bold). First off, we're talking about multiple different energies--not different Pokemon types--versus a single energy type. Second, there are these things called techs. Sometimes these are put in decks just to take advantage of your opponent's weakness, even if it's not the same type as the rest of the Pokemon in your deck. A big one right now is Terrakion. And an even bigger one is Mewtwo EX. You could put BOTH of those in a Lightning/Eel/Zekrom deck, and it wouldn't mess up your energy too much (or at all). Mewtwo can go in any deck, and all you need to do for Terrakion is add a Fighting energy or two, or add a few Prism Energies. Because of the low count of these specific energies (for Terrakion), that won't mess with your consistancy, meaning you'll mostly keep getting the Lightning energies that you need for your Lightning Pokemon.
Speaking of consistancy, it ALWAYS matters. This probably isn't the BEST example, but it deals with the weakness example you gave. Before Noble Victories came out, I ran a Scizor Prime deck. What deck was running wild at that time? Reshiphlosion. Was it an autoloss for me whenever I went against one? Nope! I won quite a few times against that deck just because my deck was fast, simple, and was fairly consistant. Now did I lose to it at all? Of course I did. lol My point is that if you're consistant, you have a chance; nothing is an autoloss. Actually, here's a better example. The winner of the ECC this year won because he was strictly going for consistancy, rather than teching for certain matchups. In fact, his deck ran 4 Tornadus, and in the finals, he was going against a Zekrom EX deck (Lightning being Tornadus' weakness). And you're going to tell me consistancy didn't help him?
And on a final note, it's not like everyone's saying Dragons are bad just because of their multi energy attack costs. In fact, I'm pretty sure Rayquaza EX will be a very good card because of its energy cost. And that's because our best energy accelerations are for Lightning (Eelektrik) AND Fire (Typhlosion/Emboar). However, a glaring issue with the dragons is that their attacks aren't really that great, especially for the energies they cost. The two go hand in hand. And not only that, but you pretty much have to compare them to EX's. AGAIN, for the energies they cost, their attacks aren't great, especially when compared to what EX's can dish out AND withstand. If they can't really compete against EX's... why use them? And unfortunately, that applies to pretty much every Pokemon that evolves now. I hate it, but it's the truth. Take Blaziken from Dark Rush for example. "140 HP? 130 damage?! Awesome! ...Oh, wait. EX's have more HP than that and can use Catcher to KO Torchic or Combusken before you can even evolve into Blaziken. I guess it's just 'meh' now." I mean, I still like Blaziken as much as when I first saw it, but you have to come to that realization about EX's most likely winning against most evolved Pokemon.
And for the record, I actually like these Dragon Pokemon they've come out with so far. However, I don't really see any of them, besides Rayquaza EX, being in the metagame.
signofzeta said:
This was addressed in more ways than one. CaKE was a top tier deck (using Water and Metal) and so was 6 Corners (requiring a bunch of different types of energies). In fact, the winning deck of last year's World Championships was Magneboar (using Fire and Lightning). So now you really have no excuse to keep saying Pokemon players can't deal with multi energy. Now moving on to... whatever this is:
signofzeta said:
Many things wrong here (especially the sentence that I made bold). First off, we're talking about multiple different energies--not different Pokemon types--versus a single energy type. Second, there are these things called techs. Sometimes these are put in decks just to take advantage of your opponent's weakness, even if it's not the same type as the rest of the Pokemon in your deck. A big one right now is Terrakion. And an even bigger one is Mewtwo EX. You could put BOTH of those in a Lightning/Eel/Zekrom deck, and it wouldn't mess up your energy too much (or at all). Mewtwo can go in any deck, and all you need to do for Terrakion is add a Fighting energy or two, or add a few Prism Energies. Because of the low count of these specific energies (for Terrakion), that won't mess with your consistancy, meaning you'll mostly keep getting the Lightning energies that you need for your Lightning Pokemon.
Speaking of consistancy, it ALWAYS matters. This probably isn't the BEST example, but it deals with the weakness example you gave. Before Noble Victories came out, I ran a Scizor Prime deck. What deck was running wild at that time? Reshiphlosion. Was it an autoloss for me whenever I went against one? Nope! I won quite a few times against that deck just because my deck was fast, simple, and was fairly consistant. Now did I lose to it at all? Of course I did. lol My point is that if you're consistant, you have a chance; nothing is an autoloss. Actually, here's a better example. The winner of the ECC this year won because he was strictly going for consistancy, rather than teching for certain matchups. In fact, his deck ran 4 Tornadus, and in the finals, he was going against a Zekrom EX deck (Lightning being Tornadus' weakness). And you're going to tell me consistancy didn't help him?
And on a final note, it's not like everyone's saying Dragons are bad just because of their multi energy attack costs. In fact, I'm pretty sure Rayquaza EX will be a very good card because of its energy cost. And that's because our best energy accelerations are for Lightning (Eelektrik) AND Fire (Typhlosion/Emboar). However, a glaring issue with the dragons is that their attacks aren't really that great, especially for the energies they cost. The two go hand in hand. And not only that, but you pretty much have to compare them to EX's. AGAIN, for the energies they cost, their attacks aren't great, especially when compared to what EX's can dish out AND withstand. If they can't really compete against EX's... why use them? And unfortunately, that applies to pretty much every Pokemon that evolves now. I hate it, but it's the truth. Take Blaziken from Dark Rush for example. "140 HP? 130 damage?! Awesome! ...Oh, wait. EX's have more HP than that and can use Catcher to KO Torchic or Combusken before you can even evolve into Blaziken. I guess it's just 'meh' now." I mean, I still like Blaziken as much as when I first saw it, but you have to come to that realization about EX's most likely winning against most evolved Pokemon.
And for the record, I actually like these Dragon Pokemon they've come out with so far. However, I don't really see any of them, besides Rayquaza EX, being in the metagame.
Rayquaza EX is just overpowered...
Magneboar is an obvious candidate, but Zekeels can run it very well too. It can hit for 120 first turn it's played (attach fire, Dynamotor x2) then 180 afterwards (attach lightning, Dynamotor x2). It's a cross between Zekrom and Zekrom-EX...
Magneboar is an obvious candidate, but Zekeels can run it very well too. It can hit for 120 first turn it's played (attach fire, Dynamotor x2) then 180 afterwards (attach lightning, Dynamotor x2). It's a cross between Zekrom and Zekrom-EX...
signofzeta said:
This is a major fallacy that card game designers make, at least when they're new to making them: The belief was that if a card was harder to get, you'd see fewer of them being played at competitions and thus the power of these cards would get mitigated in how people wouldn't see them quite as much.
What actually happens is that competitive players will pay large amounts of money or fight tooth and nail to get enough copies of these powerful cards for their decks. Richard Garfield, creator of Magic, called it "Rich Kid Syndrome."
In other words, if the Dragon types turn out to be really good, then their rarity only means these players will have to pay more to get them, and you won't be seeing them any less than if they're common.
signofzeta said:
Not exactly. In the latter case, you're comparing the multi-Energy deck to itself and not the single-Energy deck.
Let's say you had 12 Energy in a deck, and let's say all of them were Psychic. Assuming a totally even distribution, the odds of you getting a Psychic Energy are 1 in 5. After that, the odds are 11 in 59. That means you have a roughly 3.73% chance of getting two Psychic Energy in a row.
Now let's say you had 6 Psychic Energy and 6 Grass Energy. Assuming a totally even distribution, the odds of you getting either Energy type is still 1 in 5, but now the odds of you getting the other Energy type is 5 in 59. Your odds of getting one Energy type, then the other is now about 1.69%. This is less than half of it you only had one Energy type.
Try it at a prerelease event. If you use a single type of Energy, you'll be able to charge up your Pokémon, no problem. If you use 2 types of Energy, it'll be harder but still doable. 3 or more, and you're asking for trouble.
That being said, and it's been mentioned before, but multi-color decks, and Pokémon that use multiple Energy types, have been done successfully. Case in point: Salamence ex, and later on, Ho-Oh. I would agree with you in that the complaints of the Dragon-types needing multiple Energy types are unwarranted; I personally find it quite interesting. However, I would agree with the others that this makes these Pokémon hard to use. (That's a draw for me--I love finding challenges others can't or don't want to attempt.)
Giratina isn't playabke, really but did you see Rayquazas wording? If you discards all {L}, then you'll still have the {R} energy, and if you can get 1 {L} onto it, it can still attack. This seems clunky, but try EelBoarQuaza or you could call it BbQEd(Barbecued)
MEWTWO.
That is all.
...And for all the people who think Giratina is not playable, I disagree. {G}{P}{C} for 90 pierce-all is very good, and on a Basic too, meaning you can use Prisms and such. Granted, I don't think it will see as much play as Rayquaza (because all you people are hyping it), but that isn't to say that Giratina is not a decent card.
I'm sorry, but does Cascoon really switch the Defending Pokémon with one of your benched Pokémon?
Or is that just a typo?
I may be out of touch with these recent sets, but last time I checked, this isn't Yu-Gi-Oh!.
And that would be way too powerful an attack for one Colorless.
Oh, and on a frigg'n Cascoon...
Or is that just a typo?
I may be out of touch with these recent sets, but last time I checked, this isn't Yu-Gi-Oh!.
And that would be way too powerful an attack for one Colorless.
Oh, and on a frigg'n Cascoon...
I saw that too. Anyway, the dragon types are still very unimpressive. Raquaza could be thrown in to eels, but that might not be too...... good.Furn said: