So three things:
First, the
Gym Badge cards aren't particularly good for play, but look nice for collectors
and prove that TPC can do what I want with some of the actual, competitive Trainer cards. Remember my annoyance at
Professor Juniper and
Professor Sycamore needed a new rule? If not, I just believe that
Professor Sycamore should have been a card named "
Professor" (no specific Professor character specified) and
Professor Juniper ought to have received an errata changing her name to just "
Professor". Then there would be no more need for a special rule about not using the two in the same deck
and the other Professor characters could be released as "
Professor" as well; different art, same name and effect. In this thread I added onto it by pointing out that we could have used this trick again with a "
Professor" card depicting Professor Oak and an errata to change the names of
both Professor Sycamore and
Professor Juniper to simply "
Professor" instead of the waste of space that is
Professor Oak's Hint (or whatever it is called).
MY EVALUATIONS:
- Diglett - For my opinion, it is the worst. Why? look at the HP, it can be OHKO by DT Galvantula. The ability is 50% impressive, 50% not. Easily "Lysandre"d, but it can protect Shaymins, which is its good effect.
If you wonder that where is M- Pidgeot-EX, Pokebeach already revealed it, thanks to TrainerChip of YouTube, plus about what Dugtrio looks like, here's the link to find out.
http://www.pokebeach.com/2016/08/evolutions-spoilers-setlist
Does "DT" stand for Dual Type, meaning
Galvantula (STS)? Post errata, its "Double Thread" attack can only hit
Benched Pokémon, so your opponent has to use "Electroweb" on an Active
Diglett. For a Stage 1 (the
Galvantula) that is not impressive. I mean, unless you use
Hex Maniac or something to shut down the Ability on
Diglett and hit it while it is on the Bench.
@SharKing @Shishigami @fleshrum @postmodern_pinko
I haven't tried reworking it since the Fairy Type was introduced, but a while ago I looked at how TCG Types and their interactions stacked up against video game Types and their interactions. Yes originally it made sense to have Poison as the Grass Type; most Poison Types were part Grass anyway, the color green is also closely associated with Poison, and three-in-one Types were necessary. Colorless (Dragon, Flying, Normal), Fighting (Fighting, Ground, Rock), and Grass (Bug, Grass, Poison) were as packed as they could be, and included stuff that wouldn't have made much sense as part of Fire, Lightning, Psychic or Water. The game originally only had seven Types after all.
Then again maybe not, I haven't gone through these original groupings particularly carefully.
The thing is by now, I think it needs to be reworked; with 18 video game Types and 11 TCG Types, we can avoid three-in-one Types. Why avoid them? Less deviation in terms of Type relationships:fewer effects meant to apply to Type A1 working on Type B1 (because in the TCG, they are both Type A2) and more accurate Weakness/Resistance. So pre-XY when I did that, I could minimize the deviation by shifting Poison to the Darkness Type. I also found out that it would make more sense
now to shift the Rock Type to the Metal Type; not like the names for the original combination Types always made sense. Not sure if it still holds up with the Fairy Type now added.