1) Doesn't preclude enjoying the option to own the color scheme you prefer.
2) Doesn't seem to apply to a decent chunk of the fandom; many exclusives are just recolors of an existing mold, and still sell well. Even in
adult collector targeted venues.
3) Having multiple of the same toy
can affect the play value; yeah, even
exactly the same figure. It just depends upon how you play.
I won't add another quote, but your logic isn't as sound as you think.
First, you noticed I am
against adding a basic Dragon Energy card, right? I just brought up the Transformers thing because I was going to make a
joke about it, but then realized my favorite toyline used it pretty well.
Especially with how modern toys often have alternate transformation steps and
pieces. Figure X comes with Head 1, Arms 1, and a gun. Figure 2 represents a distinctly different character, has Head 2, Arms 2, and a sword. While you technically can transform them in the same manner, the official instructions take advantage of how the alternate mode kibble and robot details give a distinct look when positioned one way versus another.
Why'd I bring this up? I do
not expect a lot out of Pokémon R&D when it comes to game design. It may not be a matter of ability, but what they are allowed to do. While I
do want the types to be more than "What you are about to play is the same strategy as for all other types. Only the names, art, and Pokémon Type have been changed to protect the innocent.", that doesn't mean they need to be radically different throughout. Which was my point, they don't
need to be radically different; they can be, but as we've regrettably seen, a
lot of Pokémon decks "feel" the same even when using different Types or Stages or even strategies; you give me a deck that hardlocks me T1 versus a deck that steam rolls with me raw offense starting T2, both can leave me sitting there doing nothing but draw/pass or actions that have little significance.
As you know, I make flawed arguments all too often. While I am that annoying person who enjoys being right, that isn't the only reason I try to correct them when I see them elsewhere. It is
very easy for such things to spread online. As an example:
Remembering that I do
not want to see a basic
Dragon Energy card created, I still can see how this line of reasoning doesn't hold up.
All basic Energy cards can meet two kings of Energy requirments: those of their own Type, and [C]. A basic
Dragon Energy could fill [N] and [C], but a basic [C] Energy would only provide [C]. Now, I
am assuming future Dragon-Types will have [N] Energy requirements; if this is not the case, then yes
Dragon Energy would be just as pointless as a basic
Colorless Energy card.
Probably still get lost since I'm addressing something else, but
remember mono-Type decks aren't the norm for
all Types
and while not competitive, functional Dragon-only decks exist. If we allow the usual off-Type cards plus
Bronzong (PHF),
Giratina-EX (AOR) and
Tyrantrum-EX (XYP) had a competitive deck for a time.