Please excuse the brevity of this topic starting post as I am posting this over mobile and the entire thought is still fresh in my head and not completely fully thought through.
So to get this discussion started would it seem likely that the supporters that have been banned in expanded due to their extreme potency on the first turn of the game be removed from the ban list due to the new rule changes coming with sword and shield?
As it would remove the negative game experience they created under the current rules?
The new rule will likely make T2 (Player 2's first turn) usage with the banned Supporters nearly as potent as T1 usage, so I don't think they're coming off the Ban List.
The only ones I could see coming back are Wally and Maxie since they were exclusively banned for first turn locking. All the other supporters and issue beyond just what they could do on the first turn
I think Wally has a slight chance at being unbanned due to it really not mattering whether or not you play it T1 with trev now since it can use Ascension and get the item lock anyways. It's actually probably gonna be better without it, though I suppose it could still have it's use later in the game. I'm not 100% sure though, since I don't know how powerful this would be with other cards. If I Wally T1 then Grand Bloom, I can get any Stage 2 I want out on my first turn. Granted that's a lot to do, but the fact is still there.
Player 1 can still field Archeops by T3... but Player 2 can't manually evolve until T4. Bringing Archeops back means anything which makes the process more efficient (including more reliable) might have to be banned instead, including future hypothetical releases. It also contributes to why Maxie's Hidden Ball Trick and Wally cannot leave the Banned List.
Chip-Chip Ice Axe (Sun & Moon—Unbroken Bonds, 165/214)
Delinquent (XY—BREAKpoint, 98/122, 98a/122, and 98b/122)
Flabébé (Sun & Moon—Forbidden Light, 83/131)
Ghetsis (Black & White—Plasma Freeze, 101/116 and 115/116)
Jessie & James (Hidden Fates, 58/68 and 68/68)
Marshadow (Shining Legends, 45/73; Black Star Promo, SM85)
Red Card (XY, 124/146; Generations, 71/83)
Reset Stamp (Sun & Moon—Unified Minds, 206/236 and 253/236)
If these cards were worded so that a player cannot use them on their first turn (meaning both T1 and T2) and we didn't have the kind of draw/search/recycling Pokémon is infamous for, they'd be fine. This is Pokémon though, so spamming Items is fairly simple and T2 Supporter "power plays" are going to become the new T1 Supporter power play.
Players will do whatever they can to offset the lack of a T1 Supporter, and especially in Expanded, they'll have options... but not enough to prevent T2 hand lock from being an issue. Ghetsis might be safe to return to Expanded but if cards like Tropical Beach or Rotom Bike become the norm... probably not. Remember, it isn't just the one use for all of these cards, but the cumulative effects of timing and combos.
Forest of Giant Plants (XY—Ancient Origins, 74/98)
Maxie's Hidden Ball Trick (XY—Primal Clash, 133/160 and 158/160)
Wally (XY—Roaring Skies, 94/108 and 107/108; Generations, RC27/RC32)
Evolution acceleration almost always means problems because future releases have to take it into account. It is made worse in Expanded, because the stuff (so far) never leaves, but also (barring the first year or two) isn't legal for Standard play. Balancing something for Expanded can mean nerfing it in Standard. This includes the possibility of multiple Evolution shortcuts.
The new T1 rules make the problem worse,not better. Player 1 gets T1, but T1 is more like "T0.5" or "T1/2" "Turn One-Half". Player 2 gets the first full turn, and now it might make Evolution acceleration a problem just for the raw attack power, as opposed to just for certain locks. When we do look at the locks, they're being used against a Player that has only been able to draw for the turn, Bench Basics (if they have any), play Items (if they have any), and attach an Energy (if they have any). Their Evolutions, Supporters, Items, etc. can all be locked down before they've had any or more than a token chance to utilize them!
I don't think anyone is proposing Forest of Giant Plants return, but Maxie's Hidden Ball Trick will still enable a T2 Kabutops (TEU) or Omastar (TEU), and would enable a T2 Archeops (NVI) if that returned. That's three strikes already, and shows that PCL will release future "broken combos". Besides the threat of future releases, whether for locks or attacking, Wally still runs afoul of Trevenant (XY).
If decks become more Item dependent to deal with the new T1 rule about No Supporters, then Trevenant becomes that much stronger. Even if they don't but it remains "as good", then Wally frees up your attack. Maybe you just start spreading early. Maybe you use something like Memory Energy so that Trevenant (XY) can use (BKP) Phantump's "Ascension" so that Trevenant BREAK is already in play before T3 begins!
Hex Maniac (XY—Ancient Origins, 75/98 and 75a/98)
You cannot use it to deny T2 Abilities anymore, but you can still use it from T2 (and onward) to create an effectively one-sided Ability lock... and with recycling options (like VS Seeker), do so turn after turn. For adding one Supporter to your deck.
I am aware I just repeated Reset St all these cards being banned should be seen as confirmation PCL is going to continue making cards that punish the opponent for having taken more Prizes than the turn player. Especially as Island Challenge Amulet won't be getting new Pokémon-EX/GX to work with from future releases. We also see other chain effects; something like Mismagius might become more important under the new T1 rules; use Dusk Stone to Evolve into it T1, then sack it to fake a T1 Supporter...
...which could still set up for Lt. Surge's Strategy shenanigans or Reset Stamp shenanigans. Oh, and again, if T2 becomes the new T1, Island Challenge Amulet/Jirachi-EX tricks are still an issue. With enough other bans, maybe Island Challenge Amulet can return.
Lusamine (Sun & Moon—Crimson Invasion, 96/111 and 110/111; Sun & Moon—Ultra Prism, 153/156 and 153a/156)
Lysandre's Trump Card (XY—Phantom Forces, 99/119 and 118/119)
Puzzle of Time (XY—BREAKpoint, 109/122)
Lusamine is about specific locks (I think?), but the other two are about how potent general card recycling is in Pokémon. Lysandre's Trump Card lets you basically throw your deck at your opponent each turn. You just need a VS Seeker to keep infinitely looping upwards of your entire deck... and non-Supporter draw power to keep things flowing. We have both. Now add in the disruptive Item cards that remain (Crushing Hammer, Enhanced Hammer, Custom Catcher, Pokémon Catcher, etc.), the pseudo-healing from bounce (like Super Scoop Up), and attackers like Seismitoad-EX and... yeah. Both LTC and Puzzle of Time also "break" the Pokémon concept of TecH.
Losing to these T2 doesn't seem much better than losing to them T1... especially with T1 being so restrictive now. Oh, and that assumes we don't have nor would eventually receive a version of these "One Turn Win" decks that still worked T1.
Note: Originally, I erroneously said "...T1 Kabutops (TEU) or Omastar (TEU), and would enable a T1 Archeops (NVI) if that returned." when I meant T2. The sentence above has been corrected.
@Otaku I think the assumption that the new supporter rule makes T1 a 1/2 turn and thus insufficient to T2 lock is wrong. There are plenty of non-supporter ways to set up T1 and not be hamstrung by a T2 Item lock especially since you can set yourself up for success by getting ready for your following turn with out items. Items were already the bulk of most decks to begin with (so item lock is already as potent it would be) the supporter generally just being a way to refresh your hand (in the first turn especially). But with cards like Shaymin EX and Dedenne GX this role still exists for T1.
What's baffling to me is your discussion of Trev though since Ascension alone does all the things you're worried about even with out Wally and Maxie. Ascension already makes T2 Item lock exist so what's the issue with other T2 lock existing? Also Wally won't start Trev spread starting a turn early because they won't have enough energy to attack with Trev on T2 (even with Dimension Valley) and Ascension already means having Trev Break on T4 so your proposed "Wally+Memory Energy" combo's only benefit is having 160 HP for T3 but is at the expense of using your supporter for the turn and running a special energy that has no use otherwise
Which is the big thing about Wally. Wally is a bad card that isn't good outside of the first turn. Any good deck should have no problem getting out all the basics it needs on turn 1. After turn 1 as a result they can just evolve normally or with EVO Soda so Wally after the first turn is just wasting your supporter. And using Wally to get out the Stage 2 faster is just a worse Rare Candy because again it wastes your supporter for the turn. That's why it never see's play outside of strategies that revolve around a first turn Stage 1 (Aka Trev Item Lock). But Trev already has T2 first turn item lock anyway because of Ascension so Wally literally was only for T1 item lock and that is going away. So Wally totally should be unbanned because it's not going to do anything except see casual play.
I think Maxie's has a similar argument. T2 item lock isn't an issue even with the new supporter rule and Archie's exists without game breaking consequences so Maxie's should have no trouble coming back either
I don't think anyone is proposing Forest of Giant Plants return, but Maxie's Hidden Ball Trick will still enable a T1 Kabutops (TEU) or Omastar (TEU), and would enable a T1 Archeops (NVI) if that returned. That's three strikes already, and shows that PCL will release future "broken combos". Besides the threat of future releases, whether for locks or attacking, Wally still runs afoul of Trevenant (XY).
I don't think anyone is proposing Forest of Giant Plants return, but Maxie's Hidden Ball Trick will still enable a T2 Kabutops (TEU) or Omastar (TEU), and would enable a T2 Archeops (NVI) if that returned. That's three strikes already, and shows that PCL will release future "broken combos". Besides the threat of future releases, whether for locks or attacking, Wally still runs afoul of Trevenant (XY).
I don't think that is the main point of contention, though. Don't let a questionable comment or two (or even five) about Trevenant throw you. I allowed that Expanded might see an increase in aggressive T2 tactics, because I think - even if only at first - we're going to struggle coping with the new T1. Yes, we have Supporter alternatives. They're already being used, so you cannot "double use them" without adjusting your build accordingly, and all the alternatives have significant drawbacks, hence why we don't just drop draw Supporters entirely and focus on them.
I've had to deal with no T1 Supporters before; so I'm thinking - at least for a time - pseudo-donks will rise. Probably not worth building your deck around the tactic, but tweaking your deck to exploit it now that your opponent's hand can misfire more often? Yeah.
Don't try to read what I said without applying these. While it is possible that we would never see another broken combo/deck emerge with Wally or Maxie's Hidden Ball Trick, they've messed up enough times that seems foolhardy to expect. Also, I know you're a good player, so why are you ignoring what Wally can do? Before we had Phantump (BKP), Wally wasn't just about the T1 lock, but maintaining the lock. Sometimes, you could not get multiple Phantump/Trevenant in play; Wally meant you could just Bench a Phantump and evolve back into Trevenant; lock maintained. Now you can just use Phantump (BKP)...
...but that doesn't mean it couldn't matter with something else. Why return Wally when, for all we know, the next card to break it releases in the set after Sword & Shield?
@Otaku I think the very premise that Wally should stay banned because it could be broken eventually or even definitely will be broken in the future is wrong.
Banning cards is inherently a bad thing for games. It removes options and choices for players to explore the game with both in serious play to try and find a competitive edge, and in casual play for people who just want to have fun deck building or finding their own unique combos. Plus it destroys the value of those cards as a collectable. But compared to leaving cards around that ruin the balance of the game, banning problematic cards is the lesser of two evils. But it is still an evil and should only done with the utmost certainty that doing so is improving the game on the whole because if it doesn't then all banning that specific card did was hurt the game.
Which is why leaving Wally on the ban list is ridiculous. We basically know that having it in expanded won't break the game comes SwSh so leaving it banned maintains all the negatives of it being banned without the positive of preventing a broken game. In the here and now leaving Wally banned is just hurting the game.
The future might break Wally? By the very way imagination and game creation works the future could break any card in the game. It doesn't mean we need to ban everything. Not only that but if something does come out in the future that can break Wally, then we can just wait until then to ban Wally. Even if the second SwSh is the set to do it. Why not give players the option to enjoy Wally for 3 months and then ban when it does become a problem?
I would like to thank everyone for engaging in this discussion,
I really have to agree with crownaxe on this. Leaving cards banned in case of future situations means that the ban list is less about having the meta game maintain a level of enjoyment and engagement but to limit player options with currently legal cards.
I'm not gonna say any of the cards might not pose an issue in the future but if they don't pose an issue with current sets and rules they shouldn't be banned.
Having a ban list where cards just go to die without being evaluated if they still pose an issue might show an intent to some players that they use the ban list to push players to play a "right" way.
Banning cards is inherently a bad thing for games. It removes options and choices for players to explore the game with both in serious play to try and find a competitive edge, and in casual play for people who just want to have fun deck building or finding their own unique combos. Plus it destroys the value of those cards as a collectable. But compared to leaving cards around that ruin the balance of the game, banning problematic cards is the lesser of two evils. But it is still an evil and should only done with the utmost certainty that doing so is improving the game on the whole because if it doesn't then all banning that specific card did was hurt the game.
Here we do not. Let's correct that premise; if I said it wrong earlier, I apologize. It is not that Wally could be broken eventually, it is that it might already be broken without us even realizing it, and that sooner or later, it will be broken again. Wally was designed for a time when Pokémon-EX were the big, powerful gimmick, so it doesn't work with them. It does work with Pokémon-GX, and it will work with V-Max. I haven't gone through Sword & Shield to make sure it won't be broken... have you? No, really: let me know if you have. Back to what I was saying, though: given their track record, do you really trust the designers to balance preemptively nerfing all the V-Max (and really, the other Evolutions) so that Wally doesn't cause problems with them, but also keep them competitive for Standard? I don't.
Another aspect is that I'm pretty sure what you call "broken" isn't the same as what I call "broken" isn't the same as what TPCi calls "broken". I suspect their definition is closer to yours than mine except on this point. I do not require a card to be actively causing problems at the moment to be broken. Here's a thought experiment to demonstrate the principle, if you need it.
Imagine a blatantly broken Trainer-Item, something that will need to be banned.
Now, think of something small you could change to make it even better.
Make both cards Ace Spec cards.
The first card may see absolutely zero play while the second card remains legal, but as soon as the second "more broken" card is banned, the first one steps up to cause problems, likely most of the same problems. I argue the logical decision would be to ban both at once, instead of banning just the second card and having folks suffer however much longer would be needed before the next wave of bans, when the first card would have to be banned anyway.
While I don't think TPCi agrees, I think they take a position between yours and mind: a card isn't banned until it has been proven to cause problems but once that happens, it is gone until it is proven to be safe. Why?
Which is why leaving Wally on the ban list is ridiculous. We basically know that having it in expanded won't break the game comes SwSh so leaving it banned maintains all the negatives of it being banned without the positive of preventing a broken game.
We actually do not know that. Well, I certainly don't. Even if you've thoroughly tested it with everything, or at least run and re-run the Theorymon for all significant cards, TPCi has a better idea of what is forthcoming for the game. If you are like me and just think the rule change will affect Expanded in a certain way, and thus think Wally won't cause problems... okay, but remember you'll have to explain it better to others... because right now you're not making a compelling argument.
This is an opinion. I hold a contrary one: the TCG's pacing has never been right because PCL's approach to card design breaks the balance between Stages of Evolution. a balance they're never going to be able to fix while anything more than the most card-specific Evolution-acceleration is legal. You don't have to agree with that, though. I just want to make it clear that this is indeed a difference of opinion.
Not what I was trying to say: the future almost certainly will break Wally. Again. It might take five months or five years, but Wally has that kind of effect.
I recognize that different cards have different likelihoods of being broken/breaking other things. Which is why what you just said doesn't apply to this discussion. It isn't wrong, but the way you're using it to "support" your argument probably is.
Not only that but if something does come out in the future that can break Wally, then we can just wait until then to ban Wally. Even if the second SwSh is the set to do it. Why not give players the option to enjoy Wally for 3 months and then ban when it does become a problem?
Because some of us will not enjoy that. I really should have asked this earlier, but I struggled to find a place for it. Do you oppose set rotation? If so, is it for all Formats, just Expanded, etc.?
Wally is literally a card designed for another-era. If PCL re-released Wally with text preventing it from being used by Pokémon-GX and Pokémon-V/V-Max, the way it can't work with Pokémon-EX (keeping that clause as well), I still wouldn't be happy about it because of my complicated theories about game balance but I could accept that they willing and able to remember it while attempting to keep everything balanced for both Standard and Expanded. Which, if I wasn't clear, would mean I could accept it coming off the Banned List. Even if they did actually screw not too long later, and it had to be banned again.
It is not that Wally could be broken eventually, it is that it might already be broken without us even realizing it, and that sooner or later, it will be broken again.Wally was designed for a time when Pokémon-EX were the big, powerful gimmick, so it doesn't work with them. It does work with Pokémon-GX, and it will work with V-Max. I haven't gone through Sword & Shield to make sure it won't be broken... have you? No, really: let me know if you have.
It's really funny to me that you're worried about Wally being used with V-Max pokemon when the reason is got banned was Trevenant which is a one prizer. Like if you go by track record In the entire 3 years that we've had GXs to evolve into Wally it saw almost no competitive play in GX decks except as an occasional tech card (which was as a Lele searchable way to evolve a pokemon, not even to abuse it for turn 1 shenanigans). And looking at SwSh no, nothing in it seems broken with Wally, espcially not the V-Max pokemon.
Back to what I was saying, though: given their track record, do you really trust the designers to balance preemptively nerfing all the V-Max (and really, the other Evolutions) so that Wally doesn't cause problems with them, but also keep them competitive for Standard? I don't.
I don't expect them to bother to do that at all. It's pretty much impossible to balance cards for two separates formats. That's why the expanded ban list exists, it's how TPCI balances the Expanded format. Design cards for Standard, then Ban anything that causes issues for Expanded (as seen with Maxie's preemptive ban with Kabutops and Omistar lock)
I do not require a card to be actively causing problems at the moment to be broken. Here's a thought experiment to demonstrate the principle, if you need it.
Imagine a blatantly broken Trainer-Item, something that will need to be banned.
Now, think of something small you could change to make it even better.
Make both cards Ace Spec cards.
The first card may see absolutely zero play while the second card remains legal, but as soon as the second "more broken" card is banned, the first one steps up to cause problems, likely most of the same problems. I argue the logical decision would be to ban both at once, instead of banning just the second card and having folks suffer however much longer would be needed before the next wave of bans, when the first card would have to be banned anyway.
This thought experiment is pretty ridiculous. Obviously in the situation you gave both will be banned. But it's because their is an established precedent that can be used to determine such a ban (A functionally equivalent to B, B needs a ban so functionally equivalent A needs band also). The precedent for Wally though (that Turn 1 item locks need to be banned from the game) is becoming invalid with the supporter rule change. So if Wally need to stand banned it need a new justification and the only way to prove that their is one is to let be reintroduced into the game or to sufficiently theory-craft a logical reason that is specifically an issue (and I feel I have theoy-crafted good reasons for why it won't be an issue)
While I don't think TPCi agrees, I think they take a position between yours and mind: a card isn't banned until it has been proven to cause problems but once that happens, it is gone until it is proven to be safe. Why?
We actually do not know that. Well, I certainly don't. Even if you've thoroughly tested it with everything, or at least run and re-run the Theorymon for all significant cards, TPCi has a better idea of what is forthcoming for the game. If you are like me and just think the rule change will affect Expanded in a certain way, and thus think Wally won't cause problems... okay, but remember you'll have to explain it better to others... because right now you're not making a compelling argument.
I feel like I've made a great argument for why Wally won't cause problems
- Wally is not a good card out side of Turn 1 (for reasons previously stated, namely decks have better ways to get out Stage 1s and Stage 2s after the first turn)
- Wally saw no competitive play except for 1 instance (Turn 1 item lock) which was deemed broken enough to bet Wally banned
- The supporter rule change removes Turn 1 Item Lock from being possible through Wally
- The next closest broken thing (Turn 2 Item Lock) already exists (Ascension Trev), has not been an issue, and does not get significantly more powerful with the rule change
- Ergo Wally no longer does something that is broken enough to get banned for
I think that argument is pretty solid. So far your only argument boils down to "well it might be broken so it should stay banned" which isn't really an argument. Your best reasoning for this is rise in pseudo-donk decks but you yourself say this will probably be temporary and players will probably adapt WHICH MEANS IT'S STILL NOT WORTH BANNING.
This is an opinion. I hold a contrary one: the TCG's pacing has never been right because PCL's approach to card design breaks the balance between Stages of Evolution. a balance they're never going to be able to fix while anything more than the most card-specific Evolution-acceleration is legal. You don't have to agree with that, though. I just want to make it clear that this is indeed a difference of opinion.
First I just want to point out a major contradiction because in you're previous quote you say that "TPCi has a better idea of what is forthcoming for the game" only to point out that their pacing is not right because their card design breaks the balance between Stages of Evolution. Which the latter is true the balances between stages of evolution is poor. But I point this out mainly to show that what TCPi game design isn't objectively correct and doesn't really matter when it comes to what the two of use think the game design should be.
Also though I find it funny you point to the lack of balance between evolutions as a mark against Wally. Namely because that imbalance is largely considered to be overly favoring of basics so it would stand to reason that a card the buffs stage 1s and stage 2s at all would be a good thing bringing evolutions closer in balance to each other. Just a thought.
Not what I was trying to say: the future almost certainly will break Wally. Again. It might take five months or five years, but Wally has that kind of effect.
I recognize that different cards have different likelihoods of being broken/breaking other things. Which is why what you just said doesn't apply to this discussion. It isn't wrong, but the way you're using it to "support" your argument probably is.
Just to be clear I was arguing against the premise of "Wally might be broken in the future" which you gone on to correct in a later post as "Wally might be broken NOW and in the future" but also I find that emoji REALLY condescending just an FYI
And some people did not enjoy their favorite cards being banned. Some people honestly did have the most enjoyment playing the broken decks that got banned out of existence. Not everyone is going to be happy. What matter most is what is better for the game as a whole and leaving not broken cards on the ban list detracts from that.
Wally is literally a card designed for another-era. If PCL re-released Wally with text preventing it from being used by Pokémon-GX and Pokémon-V/V-Max, the way it can't work with Pokémon-EX (keeping that clause as well), I still wouldn't be happy about it because of my complicated theories about game balance but I could accept that they willing and able to remember it while attempting to keep everything balanced for both Standard and Expanded. Which, if I wasn't clear, would mean I could accept it coming off the Banned List. Even if they did actually screw not too long later, and it had to be banned again.
Man the point of Expanded is that it's a format that spans multiple eras. There are going to be unintended card interactions from older cards and that's part of what makes Expanded unique. Not only that but the one you're so hung up on never became an issue in the almost 3 years we've had evolving two prizers.
Like seriously can you specifically point out something that you think Wally is going to be an issue with? Not some vague "well Wally wasn't designed with VMax in mind so might have some issues" junk. Do you have anything in mind that is specifically broken with Wally that needs to keep it banned? You literally stated you hadn't gone through the SwSh set to see it anything it was broken with Wally. How can you be so worried about playing Wally with VMax cards without actually looking at the cards in question?
For the record... I rarely use emoji, and hate the ones on this board. I use old school emoticons. You know, semi-colon followed by close parenthesis. PokéBeach is changing them on its own. If anyone reading this wants to PM me how to disable that without disabling Rich Text all together, let me know. Yes, even if it is stupidly simple.
CrownAxe, you keep telling me what I'm saying, but it ain't what I'm saying. Its close, but with a distinct difference that means I don't agree with it either. Am I doing that to you?
For the record... I rarely use emoji, and hate the ones on this board. I use old school emoticons. You know, semi-colon followed by close parenthesis. PokéBeach is changing them on its own. If anyone reading this wants to PM me how to disable that without disabling Rich Text all together, let me know. Yes, even if it is stupidly simple.
CrownAxe, you keep telling me what I'm saying, but it ain't what I'm saying. Its close, but with a distinct difference that means I don't agree with it either. Am I doing that to you?
I don’t get what you mean by this. I’m directly quoting you. I don't know how I'm misrepresenting what you're saying when I'm referring directly to what you're saying. What you think and what you post apparently are two different things I guess
Not what I was trying to say: the future almost certainly will break Wally. Again. It might take five months or five years, but Wally has that kind of effect.
Just to be clear I was arguing against the premise of "Wally might be broken in the future" which you gone on to correct in a later post as "Wally might be broken NOW and in the future"...
Like that. If you're still convinced you're accurately understanding and repeating what I've said, then it is probably time to stop. I mean, I'm not convinced Wally coming off the Banned List would be all that bad of an idea by now. I've tried to listen to what you said, and when you clarified, apply it to what I'd misunderstood earlier. Then I see stuff like what I just demonstrated, and focus on setting the record straight, even if it was on a point I would otherwise be ready to concede.
Sometimes you quote me but you almost always include your take on what I said... even when your paraphrase contradicts what you're quoting.
Like that. If you're still convinced you're accurately understanding and repeating what I've said, then it is probably time to stop. I mean, I'm not convinced Wally coming off the Banned List would be all that bad of an idea by now. I've tried to listen to what you said, and when you clarified, apply it to what I'd misunderstood earlier. Then I see stuff like what I just demonstrated, and focus on setting the record straight, even if it was on a point I would otherwise be ready to concede.
Seriously? Those quotes are all arguing against the concept that wally should stay banned because it might be broken in the future. I point i got from you because you said...
Do you not see how that statement completely implies "we shouldn't return wally because a card in the future will break it?" That's what my quoted posts were about. What was I misinterpreting?
Are you more excited if you find out your boss might give you a raise or almost certainly will give you a raise?
If it still isn't clear, then it might be time to call it quits with respect to this discussion (between you and me). Besides not communicating clearly, I'm no longer convinced of my original starting point. I still believe Wally will - sooner or later - cause some issue in the future if taken off the Ban List but even I don't believe that is the kind of thing TPCi is worried about. Which means I have no rational argument for why Wally could not be taken off the Ban List. At least, not one that is in line with TPCI's demonstrated practices and policies.
I hate leaving some of the other questions and comments that arose from this discussion unanswered, but I don't see how I can address them without causing further confusion. Because some are off-topic, or at least close enough. Some are asking me about stuff I thought I already said. If they become relevant, I can always answer them then.
I don't wish to be rude but would you mind clarifying something for me.
What is wrong with having wally off the ban list and than put back on the ban list when it is deemed an issue with current cards and rules? Would it be wrong to allow players to use it while it isn't a problem?
I'd be about the same amount of excited which is not very. Sometime stuff happens and plans fall through. It wouldn't be until I have the money in hand that'd I'd get excited
I don't wish to be rude but would you mind clarifying something for me.
What is wrong with having wally off the ban list and than put back on the ban list when it is deemed an issue with current cards and rules? Would it be wrong to allow players to use it while it isn't a problem?
No worries, you're not being rude. My big concern is that I have been rude, and derailing your thread. XP This is going to be a bit long, but you reminded me of something I was an idiot for not mentioning sooner.
Which means I have no rational argument for why Wally could not be taken off the Ban List. At least, not one that is in line with TPCI's demonstrated practices and policies.
When we began this discussion - and for some time before - I approached the topic from something of a game design standpoint. So, if Wally is removed from the Ban List, than all future cards have to be designed with it in mind. As @CrownAxe explained... no, they don't. If a problem pops up, they'll just ban some or all of the involved cards at that time. I don't like that we could find ourselves in a "bad" Format until that happens, but as long as TPCi aren't derelict in their banning duties, it (now) strikes me as an acceptable risk. Unless they have due cause to believe a future release will again "break" (or be broken by) Wally.
So, that other thing? We can't attack T1 because PCL keeps designing cards and combos that are too powerful if we have T1 attacks. We can't have T1 Supporters because PCL keeps designing Supporters that are "too good" when used T1. That seems... stupid. I'm not saying we can avoid it in the short term, but the long term solution is to stop designing cards that are going to continue the problem. Barely relevant to the discussion, this means I am uncomfortable with the rule change in the first place.
I'd be about the same amount of excited which is not very. Sometime stuff happens and plans fall through. It wouldn't be until I have the money in hand that'd I'd get excited
So, do I keep giving examples where "might" and "almost certainly" are clearly different in their meaning, and where one would be foolish to treat them as being the same, until you're willing to recognize it?
Or do I take your statement and re-frame it as you finally agreeing with me, as "about the same" is not literally "the same", so you are reacting differently to the situations? ¬_¬
