But I want to get out three Decidueye-GX in one turn. Joking aside, the Basic Energy are a thing. Just use the Dragon types with low energy counts.
Discussion Does Dragon Need a Basic Energy Type?
- Thread starter MorningSTAR1337
- Start date
But I want to get out three Decidueye-GX in one turn. Joking aside, the Basic Energy are a thing. Just use the Dragon types with low energy counts.
Give me examples.
Noivern-GX is one Dragonite-EX is pretty contained. Rayquaza doesn't ever seem to have problems. Garchomp is decent too. Sure I'm forgetting others.
What Dragonite, Rayquaza or Garchomp? They are all good but as different type pokemon. Noivern is promising, but after rotation it will be bad because there isn't DDE.
I mean, you have to do a little bit of work, bro. Decks like The Truth don't just come out of nowhere without a little bit of elbow grease. You're playing with the big boys now! Act like it, or go back and play Night March.
No. What good would a basic dragon energy be right now anyway? If they made one now, you would still have to wait several sets for it to come out, and all the while dragons are already made to utilize two different pre-existing basic energy. So once your basic dragon energy comes out ... who would use it? Only dragons in that set and onward. It would completely ignore every dragon before it, and clash heavily with the existing mechanics. An energy for a pokemon type that can't use it at all. When Darkness and Metal energies existed solely as special energy, there were pokemon that required them still, and the switch to make them basic made no difference in terms of attack cost. But nobody currently requires dragon energy as a cost, so a dragon basic energy would be nearly useless to every current pokemon (except colorless). Also if dragons could be powered up so easily, what would make them stand out at all? The attacks would slowly be nerfed and they would be no different than any other type of pokemon. They are supposed to be a trade-off. Need lots of energy/diversity but pack a bigger punch than other types.
And for anyone thinking that current dragons could utilize it, well, let me remind you that a basic dragon energy will not help any current dragon because it would only count as dragon energy, and no other type. It can't count for any other type or do anything unique or have any effect on it whatsoever because that would make it a special energy.
And for anyone thinking that current dragons could utilize it, well, let me remind you that a basic dragon energy will not help any current dragon because it would only count as dragon energy, and no other type. It can't count for any other type or do anything unique or have any effect on it whatsoever because that would make it a special energy.
It would ruin dragons if they had a basic energy, they augment decks and add type diversity without the need for more energies.
I think dragons (along with every type really) needs more weakness and resistance diversity and a bit more thought put into them in their secondary type prints too. Fighting type Garchomp printed with grass weakness makes no sense.
I think dragons (along with every type really) needs more weakness and resistance diversity and a bit more thought put into them in their secondary type prints too. Fighting type Garchomp printed with grass weakness makes no sense.
It wouldn't be that hard to implement Basic Dragon energy.
PTCi releases a basic Dragon Energy and an errata stating that all non colorless basic energy costs of Dragons are now Dragon energy.
OR
TPCi Prints a Dragon Energy that reads "This card provides [C] energy. When this card is attached to [N] Pokemon, this card provides every type of energy, but only one energy at a time. This card counts as Basic energy."
All future Dragon type Pokemon are printed with Dragon energy symbols, and once the last Dragon with non Dragon energy rotates, the card text disappears.
As to whether or not this should happen, I don't know. All I know is that every successful Dragon type in the past has has energy support in some form, or didn't require the dual energy type attack to be good. If we are okay with binder fodder for 90% of the cards printed, then who cares. If we want more playable cards in a set, then something needs to be addressed in a lot of places in the TCG.
I get that types have mechanics that more or less are associated with them, but some mechanics are better than others.
Nobody wants to play split energy cost Pokemon, because running two types of basic energy is a consistency nightmare. When you have space for 12 energy you have 12 outs to energy. When you play 6-6 line of split energy you just halved your chances of drawing into the energy you need.
Sure, there are cards that might help you with the consistency issues of running multiple types of energy, but other decks don't need to play those cards. They get to play other consistency cards instead.
PTCi releases a basic Dragon Energy and an errata stating that all non colorless basic energy costs of Dragons are now Dragon energy.
OR
TPCi Prints a Dragon Energy that reads "This card provides [C] energy. When this card is attached to [N] Pokemon, this card provides every type of energy, but only one energy at a time. This card counts as Basic energy."
All future Dragon type Pokemon are printed with Dragon energy symbols, and once the last Dragon with non Dragon energy rotates, the card text disappears.
As to whether or not this should happen, I don't know. All I know is that every successful Dragon type in the past has has energy support in some form, or didn't require the dual energy type attack to be good. If we are okay with binder fodder for 90% of the cards printed, then who cares. If we want more playable cards in a set, then something needs to be addressed in a lot of places in the TCG.
I get that types have mechanics that more or less are associated with them, but some mechanics are better than others.
Nobody wants to play split energy cost Pokemon, because running two types of basic energy is a consistency nightmare. When you have space for 12 energy you have 12 outs to energy. When you play 6-6 line of split energy you just halved your chances of drawing into the energy you need.
Sure, there are cards that might help you with the consistency issues of running multiple types of energy, but other decks don't need to play those cards. They get to play other consistency cards instead.
That statement is contradictory; such an errata would be "hard" given how radically it changes the game, even if only for Expanded (and Legacy). If you're not worried about those formats, then don't issue any errata and just make sure new Dragons use it.
This is very hard; basic Energy are basic Energy and Special Energy are Special Energy; this isn't like Yu-Gi-Oh where you can have Effect Monsters that count as Non-Effect Monsters.
This contradicts much of the game's life. Besides cards like Rainbow Energy, we've had successful mutli-basic-Energy Type decks on and off since Haymaker.
Rayquaza/Eels is only really viable in legacy (granted, it is good there). Dragon Megaray is a joke deck that is 100% dependent on DDE to even be a successful joke.
Dragonite-EX and Garchomp EX are both exceptionally bad cards, idk why you'd even mention them. GGL or WFC and discard 1 energy for 120 damage? Why would you ever play those in a format where Tapu Bulu-GX has more HP, more type based support, GGC cost instead and deals 120 without even having to discard? They weren't even good when they came out.
You can make a lot of funny dragon decks. Deltanite/Dragonair SM, Haxorus BKT/Talonflame, Goodra GRI/Magnezone. But let's not mistake 'it can cheese a win once in five games' for a deck that is actually good or rewarding to play.
Noivern-GX won't even be that good in the worlds meta with DDE in play. Item lock is less valuable than it ever has been and it's joined in its set by Gardevoir-GX which is set to see a lot of play right out of the gate.
This is very hard; basic Energy are basic Energy and Special Energy are Special Energy; this isn't like Yu-Gi-Oh where you can have Effect Monsters that count as Non-Effect Monsters.
Not at all. By the way the game works now, the text "this card counts as basic energy" isn't even necessary. All Special Energy is marked as such with the text "Special Energy". Just omit it, and it is basic energy. There is no rule stating that basic energy can't have any special rules attached to it.
Aw great, people complaining about how they can't use pokemon that have multi energy costs in their mono energy decks.
There should NEVER be basic dragon energy of any kind. PERIOD.
I find it funny how in Pokemon TCG, players are scratching their heads over multi energy decks, while in MTG, their players know how to run multicolored decks, like they were born with the ability. The problems with "drawing the wrong energy" in Pokemon TCG when you run multi energy decks is exactly the same problem as drawing the wrong lands in MTG. Pokemon TCG players seem to have a problem with it, MTG players don't.
I am also an advocate of grouping pokemon types by the kinds of gameplay abilities, such as discarding opponent's cards, or healing your own pokemon etc. If you run a mono energy deck, you are limited to what you do. If you run a multi energy deck, you have more options, at the expense of not being able to draw the right energy to power up the attacks. The reason why nobody probably plays multi energy type decks is because each of the types does everything, rather than each type specializes in something exclusive to that type. That's why MTG players are willing to run multicolor decks because each color doesn't do everything. Running a mono-blue deck, but you want some burn spells? Better splash in some red.
There should NEVER be basic dragon energy of any kind. PERIOD.
I find it funny how in Pokemon TCG, players are scratching their heads over multi energy decks, while in MTG, their players know how to run multicolored decks, like they were born with the ability. The problems with "drawing the wrong energy" in Pokemon TCG when you run multi energy decks is exactly the same problem as drawing the wrong lands in MTG. Pokemon TCG players seem to have a problem with it, MTG players don't.
I am also an advocate of grouping pokemon types by the kinds of gameplay abilities, such as discarding opponent's cards, or healing your own pokemon etc. If you run a mono energy deck, you are limited to what you do. If you run a multi energy deck, you have more options, at the expense of not being able to draw the right energy to power up the attacks. The reason why nobody probably plays multi energy type decks is because each of the types does everything, rather than each type specializes in something exclusive to that type. That's why MTG players are willing to run multicolor decks because each color doesn't do everything. Running a mono-blue deck, but you want some burn spells? Better splash in some red.
Last edited:
I think this is the first thing we agreed on.
Here's the problem:Magic tries to force you into building with 2+ colors because a single colors have obvious weaknesses. In Pokemon, it doesn't happen that way. More-so, running 14 energy is a very high amount (it is usually closer to 10), but to be competitive in MTG, you have to play around 20 in a typical Standard deck.
Which stems from my other complaint about this game, how each pokemon type is just a recolor of one another, and that there is no reason to run a second type to cover the weakness of the first type.
The makers of this game should just create cards that rewards multi type decks and punishes those who use mono type, just to get people who love mono type decks to move out of their comfort zones.
Create pokemon that do extra if 2 or more basic energy types are attached.
Create trainer cards that force your opponent to do something, but worse, if they do not have 2 or more basic energy types on the board.
I'll go more to the extreme. Some MTG players can run a 3+ color deck, and Pokemon players can't even run more than 1 type deck. There has got to be some sort of card in Pokemon TCG that does the same thing as Rampant Growth.
Just be glad that no dragon utilizes 3 type energy costs.
Last edited:
I'm not 100% sure about your claim but I'm pressed for time at the moment; so assuming you are right it still takes a simple concept (doesn't have to be a hard and fast rule) and makes it more complex.
I am not very knowledgeable of M:tG, but I'm not kidding: Haymaker, one of the earliest dominant archetypes, a deck birthed in the original Base Set, managed to include two non-Colorless-Type attackers in the same deck: Electabuzz and Hitmonchan. Yes, neither of them needed two Energy, but fast-forward to the BW-era when Rayquaza-EX (DRX) managed to do just fine with Elektrik (NVI) and two basic Energies even though only one was affected by the latter's Ability.
With respect to both of these points, it still does not justify a basic Dragon Energy card, merely a reperint of Double Dragon Energy or other shortcuts. We've had Dragon-Types requiring multiple Energy-Type for a few years prior to the release of Double Dragon Energy, and we had some top decks use Dragon-Types during that time. At best you can present this as a possible path, but I do not believe it to be a wise one.
Dragon doesn't need its own basic energy type. Fairy is a different matter it had to have its own basic energy type as with the other types its very common among Pokemon. Also they way Dragon Pokemon work is very unique in the sense of the Energy combinations and changing them now to have a basic would impact on the quality of the cards in terms of attacks.
Primal Clash was the ORAS set when it came out in Japan it was released in 2014 but we didn't get it until 2015. That is why the Primal forms of Groudon and Kyogre are featured as the main Pokemon of the set the only Pokemon it didn't have was Rayquaza which was in Roaring Skies.
Primal Clash was the ORAS set when it came out in Japan it was released in 2014 but we didn't get it until 2015. That is why the Primal forms of Groudon and Kyogre are featured as the main Pokemon of the set the only Pokemon it didn't have was Rayquaza which was in Roaring Skies.
In PTCG, from my experience, multicolor decks (not counting cards like rainbow/double rainbow energy which have fueled certain multitype decks since TR) happen only when
1. The game is ludicrously fast and you don't have to worry about jank because you can pull through your entire deck in 1-2 turns and have basically any card out of your deck whenever you want it(namely base set)
2. You have great acceleration/search for one or both of your energy types (SMF, Ray/Eels, Vika/Bulu)
3. Your secondary energy type is 1-3 cards and is devoted to a secondary attacker mostly used in one matchup
3 is the interesting category because people have completely stopped doing that. I think in part due to a lack of suitable cards for it, most secondary attackers are designed to fuel/work with cards of their own type (ie Yveltal BKT, Yveltal-XY) or have only colorless costs like Dedenne.
Multi energy type decks were pretty common (though again most of them were like 6-10 energy of primary type, 1-3 of secondary plus rainbow/multi energy) up to BW when they kind of fell off the face of the earth.
1. The game is ludicrously fast and you don't have to worry about jank because you can pull through your entire deck in 1-2 turns and have basically any card out of your deck whenever you want it(namely base set)
2. You have great acceleration/search for one or both of your energy types (SMF, Ray/Eels, Vika/Bulu)
3. Your secondary energy type is 1-3 cards and is devoted to a secondary attacker mostly used in one matchup
3 is the interesting category because people have completely stopped doing that. I think in part due to a lack of suitable cards for it, most secondary attackers are designed to fuel/work with cards of their own type (ie Yveltal BKT, Yveltal-XY) or have only colorless costs like Dedenne.
Multi energy type decks were pretty common (though again most of them were like 6-10 energy of primary type, 1-3 of secondary plus rainbow/multi energy) up to BW when they kind of fell off the face of the earth.
I remember Haymaker (yes, I'm THAT old), but the deal with Haymaker was everyone played about 20 energy (about twice the amount played right now) because Energy Removal and Super Energy Removal were 4-of staples, meaning potentially 16 of your energy would hit the discard without anything getting KOed. Professor Oak (Sycamore) was effectively an item(there were no supporters), Computer Search wasn't an ACE Spec (Ultra Ball for anything), and 2 of their attackers had cheap one energy attacks for typed energy and attacks with colorless costs, meaning drawing into the perfect energy wasn't always required. The third attacker did 30 for [C][C][C].
If you didn't have the right energy at the right time in Haymaker, it was because you drew REALLY poorly or were REALLY unlucky.
Even then, we had monotype decks like Blastoise and Venusaur that were pretty common.
I get what your saying, @Otaku, the meta could shift and we could have decent muti-type decks and then certain dragons could be splashed into decks to add variety, but that requires 3 things:
1) 2 types with decent enough synergy to be worth playing together.
2) Some way to get around the clunky-ness of playing 2 energy types (Rainbow energy, energy acceleration, etc.)
3) A dragon type with that exact energy split that is worth playing AND has synergy with the deck already.
Again, I'm not sure we NEED to make a basic Dragon energy and start printing Dragons with basic Dragon energy costs, but something needs to be done as they are rarely worth playing. Maybe TPCi could start focusing on making multi type decks more viable? Maybe they could just make some REALLY good dragons that make the consistency issues worth it? The former would require slowing down the format a LOT and the latter sounds like a nightmare to balance.
If you didn't have the right energy at the right time in Haymaker, it was because you drew REALLY poorly or were REALLY unlucky.
Even then, we had monotype decks like Blastoise and Venusaur that were pretty common.
I get what your saying, @Otaku, the meta could shift and we could have decent muti-type decks and then certain dragons could be splashed into decks to add variety, but that requires 3 things:
1) 2 types with decent enough synergy to be worth playing together.
2) Some way to get around the clunky-ness of playing 2 energy types (Rainbow energy, energy acceleration, etc.)
3) A dragon type with that exact energy split that is worth playing AND has synergy with the deck already.
Again, I'm not sure we NEED to make a basic Dragon energy and start printing Dragons with basic Dragon energy costs, but something needs to be done as they are rarely worth playing. Maybe TPCi could start focusing on making multi type decks more viable? Maybe they could just make some REALLY good dragons that make the consistency issues worth it? The former would require slowing down the format a LOT and the latter sounds like a nightmare to balance.
I used to play a deck that ran Water, Fire and Lightning Energy, which got me second place at a City Championships. What @signofzeta says is right. There is nothing to separate the types and they tend to do this by making broken Trainer cards. There is no reward for playing two types since you can run one and win worlds where other card games try to get you more involved.
The problem is the players don't want the game to grow. They want DDE to come back and things like FoGP to make really dumb Grass decks. What we need are more cards that engages the player. Nothing more with large damage but something more to make the players think how they approach deck building. The one Pokemon they could have done this with, Ho-Oh-GX, is just another beater and not one that required different Energy.
The problem is the players don't want the game to grow. They want DDE to come back and things like FoGP to make really dumb Grass decks. What we need are more cards that engages the player. Nothing more with large damage but something more to make the players think how they approach deck building. The one Pokemon they could have done this with, Ho-Oh-GX, is just another beater and not one that required different Energy.