Discussion Does it Really Hurt to Get Hit by a Hammer?

2

21times

Aspiring Trainer
Member
Hello fellow Beachbums,

Just want to give you an update on an analysis I've been doing over the past couple of weeks, and I think I have enough data to tell a pretty good story here.

Again, laying the groundrules, I only play PTCGO, and I only play in the standard format.

Over the past 371 games I've played on PTCGO, I've tracked whether or not my opponent has carried some form of energy disruption as a supporter card. This includes Crushing Hammers, Enhanced Hammers, and Team Flare Grunt. This analysis does not include any pokemon whose attacks or abilities involve energy disruption.

Overall, in 67 of the 370 games, my opponent carried hammers or flare grunt in his deck (18%). Over those 371 games, I went 191 and 179 (51.6%). Versus decks that carry hammers or flare grunt, I went 34-33 (50.7%). Against decks that didn't carry hammers or flare grunt, I went 157-146 (51.8%).

From these numbers, decks that used energy disruption supporter cards won about 1% more than those that didn't.

So from what I can see here, running energy disruption cards helps a little... but maybe not as much as we think they do.
 
What decks were you running? I think it really depends on the matchup. Some decks rely on special energy much more than others, and therefore I think they are more vulnerable than ones that don't.

For example, energy disruption against Greninja Break won't do much. The attacks are just one energy so even if you flip two heads one turn, you're disrupting two attackers, but since each needs one attachment and you can only attack once a turn it won't matter.

Other decks like M Mewtwo might be more vulnerable. Flip two heads when they have two DCE on one, their damage output is dropping significantly next turn. That said, the presence of energy acceleration negates part of the loss since mega turbo plus turn attachment will allow the equivalent of replacing one DCE. Dark/Tina also relies on DDE for some of the damage, and the special energy is much harder to replace. That said, both these decks are very powerful in the current meta and the presence of energy disruption hasn't shut them down.

Always interesting to read your stats. Keep posting them!
 
@TheGuardian118 has most of it covered. When evaluating anything try to consider:

1) General usage
2) Proper usage
3) Specific deck match-ups
4) What does not get played.

Standard still has a need to periodically "burn" cards from hand... which is actually common to all formats. This is because of the need to thin the deck (before a shuffle and draw card), the need to thin the hand (before a "draw until..." effect, or because you're just going to discard it anyway due to another card effect (like Professor Juniper or Professor Sycamore) so hopefully using it when it was unneeded (like because you're going to KO the Pokémon that had the Energy attached) may annoy or confuse your opponent. Notice how in none of these examples is the actual Energy being discarded important, and for some it might be very, very difficult to really know how much of a difference was made.

As is often the case there will be overlap, and I put what I think we may be missing in bold text. People make mistakes; I don't mean that as a blanket justification for why we cannot always trust the numbers, but that might be a good thing to consider while collecting the data. Especially if your opponent makes it obvious by posting something like a :(, :confused:, or :mad: emoticon right after the move, even when (for example) Crushing Hammer came up "heads". The rest may be a matter of specifics; a 1% increase may be the maximum possible for a particular deck, or it may be that the card in question only matters a little in the specific deck v. deck match-ups you experience.

Edit: Oh, and don't forget what does not get played can matter as much as what does. I did some brainstorming and a tiny bit of play-testing with Base Set through Fossil without Energy Removal or Super Energy Removal. Suddenly Base Set Electrode seemed viable as Energy acceleration, and was enough that many slow Big Basics, Stage 1, and Stage 2 cards could steam roll Haymaker once they got going... which was always true, but without S/ER and Electrode or two sacrificed for its "Buzzap" Pokémon Power got the ball rolling.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Guardian and Otaku, you make excellent points. I'll need a little time to break it down on a deck by deck level against the main decks I've come across, but I think I can provide a meaningful level of analysis - I think sample sizes will be at least minimally adequate for the most popular decks.

And I know I don't need to say this to you guys, but the one thing I would caution: we don't get to pick the opponents we face on PTCGO. I think we need to be careful about making decisions based on 1 deck or 1 pokemon because I do see a wide variety of decks on PTCGO, probably more of a variety than I would at a real life regionals tournament.

My decks over this period:

Yveltal EX Garb 110
Greninja 100
Darkrai 54
Rainbow Road 20
Medicham 17
Scizor 14
Volcanion 12
M Mewtwo Garbodor 10
Gardevoir 7
Mega Ray Garb 7
Typhlosion 5
Audino 3
Garchomp 3
Toss and Turn Snorlax 3
Vespiquen Yanmega 3
Trevenant Gengar 2
 
Considering how much information has already been provided and the fact that I'm extremely tired at the moment, I will go ahead and be the "troll" comment of this thread...

...yes, I can confirm being hit by a hammer hurts. Except for squeaky hammers. Those just make me laugh.

But as a whole, any form of properly timed disruption can be quite irritating and (obviously) influential to the game itself. That's why these cards are played.

Seriously, though... I love squeaky hammers.

-Asmer
 
Its really deck dependent for sure. My Pidgeot deck doesn't mind getting hit by hammers but they can be annoying. Mega decks like Gardevoir, Scizor and Mewtwo don't really mind getting hit by them because their attackers are cheap and they can use Mega Turbo to recover them and decks like Volcanion and Greninja don't really care because they are very effective attackers with a single energy cost.

Where they become more annoying is hammers could ruin Giratina variants because that is the source of their damage output. Dropping hammers and or grunts could remove 80+ damage that turn which really hurt their attackers. The same remains true for Mega Mewtwo because they could lose their ability for get a OHKO. Another factor to consider is playing them right. Playing a hammer when it could do the most damage also matter. Playing a hammer to remove energy from the Bench right before a KO on the active could really break a game.

Also card choice matters as well. If you Hex Maniac your opponent and then drop a hammer to remove all energy from the game, that could affect their game as well. I just feel that a lot of decks are able to deal with hammers and some decks can fall apart to them but there isn't many decks that do but they tend the be tier one decks.
 
Most common Pokemon I've come across and stats:

Garbodor - 52 times overall _ played hammers 21 times _ overall record W 13 L 39 _ 25% _ record against hammers _ W 6 L 15 _ 29%
Volcanion - 44 times_ only played hammers 3 times
Yveltal - 35 times _ played hammers 18 times _ overall record W 12 L 23 _ 34% _ record against hammers _ W 8 L 10 _ 44%
M Mewtwo - 31 times _ only played hammers 4 times
Octillery - 28 times _ only played hammers 2 times
Greninja - 28 times _ never played hammers
Rainbow Road - 27 times _ only played hammers once
M Gardevoir - 20 times _ only played hammers twice

Sorry, guess I can't really do a good stratification here. I'm also guessing that the Garbodor and Yveltal results also probably overlap in many cases. Most Yveltal decks are running Garb... although it's interesting that my record against Yveltal Garb with hammers is better than my record than when it does not run hammers.

And just so you know, I do look at deck lists of my opponents after the match, but I would say at least half the time, people have their decks hidden, so there might be cases where they ran, say, enhanced hammers, but either discarded them or never got a chance to play them and I might not have been able to track that.

But what we can definitely say is that most decks do NOT run energy disruption!
 
Eh, troll all you want Asmer, I don't mind.... I'm just basically speaking to the question: there's no doubt that hammers hurt, it's just is there a card out there that's going to be used a little more frequently and (as Guardian mentioned) will hurt just a little more. For instance, would it be better to tech in Delinquent or an extra parallel city or another Lysandre? Would those have more of an impact more frequently than a hammer might? This is where it gets squishy. There's no way to do a study on measuring the effectiveness of every card instead of hammers, there are too many different variables. This is where you just have to use your judgment.
 
21times said:
Eh, troll all you want Asmer, I don't mind.... I'm just basically speaking to the question: there's no doubt that hammers hurt, it's just is there a card out there that's going to be used a little more frequently and (as Guardian mentioned) will hurt just a little more. For instance, would it be better to tech in Delinquent or an extra parallel city or another Lysandre? Would those have more of an impact more frequently than a hammer might? This is where it gets squishy. There's no way to do a study on measuring the effectiveness of every card instead of hammers, there are too many different variables. This is where you just have to use your judgment.
Click to expand...

Except you explained after why you did mind... and honestly, I don't like to troll often. I just needed a placeholder to remind myself to post about this later (and because I really do love Squeaky Hammers).

Now that I'm actually awake and (fairly) alert, I agree that judgment plays a massive factor as to whether or not you should be playing Hammers and, realistically, any form of disruption in Standard right now. I also, to a large degree, feel that when it comes to disruption in general, only very specific decks should be utilizing it at all and that other decks are simply losing more games because they're not focusing on one of PTCG's most important factors: Consistency. M Mewtwo Y is one of my favorite examples of, "When it goes well, it goes REALLY well. When it doesn't... I'll grab a mop." in this game.

Now, I decided to type a rather large argument for why I believe Hammers are still good and, looking back on it, I have no idea why I did, but I don't think erasing my opinion on something (albeit Devil's Advocate-esque) is a good idea. So... here you go. That said, I honestly think that if we're going to play disruption at all, Energy Disruption is not the way to go with the exception of maybe Crawdaunt looping and only because you can utilize that in various ways with a search engine that is very, very good and easy to use in this Meta.

Here we go.

Some things that must be considered are fairly obvious: The Meta itself, overall personal deck choice due to various factors such as deck consistency (in other words, do I have the room to really be running these?), personal preference in tandem with personal strategy (which, imo, should be heavily considered alongside determining the Meta of whatever tournament you are about to go in to), etc. Something that is a little less out there as far as consideration, however, is the fact that things like Crushing and Enhanced Hammer can:
A. Be extremely useful in Mirror Matches. If you're running Yveltal EX/Garbodor and you decide you're going to tech in 1-2 Enhanced Hammers and, let's say, a Skyla to slow down their Yveltal-EX from accelerating, you may win games you simply should not be winning.
B. Be searched for cards like Skyla and Trainers' Mail, meaning they can be grabbed by an Engine. This is important because if one honestly feels that Energy Denial is going to be important (Yveltal doesn't exactly appreciate losing their DCE, especially in Mirror Matches), something that can act as an overall searcher is going to be almost as important to utilize alongside said strategy.
C. In comparison to Delinquent (only because you mentioned it) are not heavily based around conditions. Delinquent requires a set up, a Supporter use for that turn, and (realistically), your opponent to not have more than 3 cards in hand. It is very easy to be able to simply utilize a VS Seeker for Sycamore or N or something to come back from a Delinquent (the loss of the stadium may not be fun, but it's not the worst thing in the world). Using a Supporter Spot on a card like Delinquent means that you lose momentum, even if your opponent loses momentum. This is important to know because Delinquent, unlike other cards, doesn't simply have a 100% "I can use this to great effect" ability. Lysandre is a bit different because if they don't have a Benched Pokemon, you can probably (probably) just straight out win the game. Plus, Lysandre has a massive amount of utility. You can deck people out with that card, which is something else entirely.

I will go ahead and state this now and put it in Bold because somehow, some way, someone will try to argue against my post and not realize that I personally think Hammers is an inferior strategy in Standard (I'll get to Expanded in a second and the comparisons), but... To answer what I feel is the most important part about your post, there are better cards in Standard than Hammers because when we had things like Junk Hunt Sableye, we could simply re-try against the RNG system. Also, Junk Hunt was unique in regards to the fact that it made the Discard Pile your own personal "Search Engine", meaning you could literally set up a Hammer of some form every single turn if you desired. Same went for things like Hypnotoxic Laser, which is still an extremely strong option, but my point is that Hammers were much easier to utilize as a whole when there was a way to easily and consistently re-use them. Plus, being able to grab two Crushing Hammers was/is very, very good.

This is why things like Expanded and Legacy Darkrai EX decks can run Hammers with efficiency. They have a strategy that is not extremely reliant on consistency being a factor (unlike other set-up decks), can produce an impressive amount of damage, and are just fast enough that they (usually) will not simply become stomped out by the faster decks of their respected Metas. On top of all that, and perhaps this is just something that aligns with the stars, Sableye is a Dark Type.

Now, to pull all this back around, I will go ahead and say that I feel that we have a Meta where multiple instances of Disruption/Control cards are viable in some regard. How one would rank them sadly seems like a wasted effort considering that they all do various things, as you stated in your post above. Does that mean Hammers are weak? No. Weaker than before? Definitely. Do I agree with your notion that there are probably better cards at the moment? Well... somewhat? To be honest, that would be something we would have to find in current results of Major Tournaments and make a comparison there as well as the comparison of all the other variables I'm sure we would all rather not get in to. But, I will say that I personally agree, regardless. :p

That all stated... I think we've all, for the most part, have answered this question fairly thoroughly. Also, I will say, I love threads like this. It made me think as to why Hammers were considered good to begin with and, quite frankly, I now feel that Sableye did make a major difference between then and now.

Regardless, thank you for spending the time to read all of this. And... I wasn't actually trolling, just so you know. >.ob

-Asmer

Edit: Edits are for typos etc. I really do need to sleep more often. x.x
 
Last edited:
No worries Asmer. You make excellent points. When I started this analysis, I just wanted to put some data together. I wanted to see if my win loss percentage was say 10% lower against decks that ran energy disruption. What everyone will agree is the vast majority of decks don't run energy disruption. My study shows that in general hammers have a very minimal effect on winning and losing. Why then is it like a punch to the gut when I see an enhanced hammer or team flare grunt? I think this is a case where we get caught up in the emotion of the moment and don't see the big picture that that hammer could have been something even more harmful. Whether a Lysandre or a bursting balloon or another draw supporter, I think every time we get that hit from a hammer, we just need to take a breath and say to ourselves, "It could have been something worse."

But I definitely agree that if there were a mechanism other than puzzle of time - say a vs seeker for item cards - hammers might indeed become more effective.
 
21times said:
No worries Asmer. You make excellent points. When I started this analysis, I just wanted to put some data together. I wanted to see if my win loss percentage was say 10% lower against decks that ran energy disruption. What everyone will agree is the vast majority of decks don't run energy disruption. My study shows that in general hammers have a very minimal effect on winning and losing. Why then is it like a punch to the gut when I see an enhanced hammer or team flare grunt? I think this is a case where we get caught up in the emotion of the moment and don't see the big picture that that hammer could have been something even more harmful. Whether a Lysandre or a bursting balloon or another draw supporter, I think every time we get that hit from a hammer, we just need to take a breath and say to ourselves, "It could have been something worse."

But I definitely agree that if there were a mechanism other than puzzle of time - say a vs seeker for item cards - hammers might indeed become more effective.
Click to expand...

The bold answers the underlined segment and I am so, SO glad you brought this up. This goes directly in to the psychology of players during card game matches and in all honesty, I feel that this isn't talked about enough (very well done!).

The fact that a majority of decks seem to not run cards such as Team Flare Grunts (I'll use this as my primary example) means that when it does hit us, it will typically catch us as players and as people off-guard. Typical questions like, "Who even plays that?", "Why now of all times?", "Seriously?", and plenty of others seem to run through our heads when things like this happen. This is because we, as human beings, love to follow very structural patterns in everything, especially mathematical formulas like Card Games. The reason this happens is because as human beings, our brain uses cognitive "shortcuts" to solve problems and answer questions more quickly. This applies to things such as daily tasks and even small things like breathing and eating as well. When this pattern is disrupted however, we start to collapse in to a state of duress and, depending on the repetition of interruption, the severity of the state may increase. Also, situations such as being under pressure (for example, winning an important match to make The Top Cut), may cause more duress.

Duress makes it much harder to play Card Games in more ways than one. The most obvious way is that it becomes harder to think as a whole. After all, if your first way of thinking was simply interrupted by a Team Flare Grunt, who knows if he has more? This leads to my second point: We start to second guess ourselves. This is an extremely dangerous thing to get in to while playing a Card Game because moves that you would normally see and think of may simply no longer exist. You may be facing a situation where you're in control, but you decide to play N instead of Juniper and all of a sudden, you draw in to absolutely nothing useful when you may have drawn a better hand otherwise (and have now given your opponent a free re-draw). These situations lead to more dire mistakes, which in turn causes losses.

One of the best things you can do under these situations is, as you stated, reassure yourself that you still have a fighting chance and that you just have to be patient. It goes the same for any time disruption hits you, actually. You never know if their N, which sends you down to two or three cards, may have just drawn you in to a Professor Sycamore or an Energy you may have needed to turn the game. It is also important to never become overconfident. For example, I've had plenty of situations where I will force someone down to one or even zero cards with Delinquent and they will top deck a Professor Sycamore and come back in to the game and, at times, win. These games can also be demoralizing as a whole and overconfidence will only make you feel much, much worse.

So, to summarize, it is a very odd thing that Energy Disruption has such a negative stereotype attached to it, especially considering that other cards do just as painful things. That said, regardless of its connotation, always remember to stay positive during a game and always think about what options you have available at all times. That is how we, as players, will grow and become better.

Great question and analysis as a whole, yo.

-Asmer
 
Asmer said:
So, to summarize, it is a very odd thing that Energy Disruption has such a negative stereotype attached to it, especially considering that other cards do just as painful things. That said, regardless of its connotation, always remember to stay positive during a game and always think about what options you have available at all times. That is how we, as players, will grow and become better.
Click to expand...

Energy removal having a negative connotation is quite appropriate with how it has been implemented in the Pokémon TCG. Disruption (and its Evolved form, Control) are about you playing and enjoying the game while your opponent? Your opponent may literally be forced to sit there and do nothing. Most frustrating, especially in a fast-paced game like Pokémon. Properly designed, balanced game play makes sure that the resource management involved is as important as the mechanics of battling; your opponent may deny you a resource but they are paying an appropriate price for it and you've still got other things you may do.

Notice how that ain't Pokémon.

The (relatively) short version is that barring specific times during the game's history, your one manual Energy attachment for the turn should be worth more than an Item card. Even when we have what seems like a fair trade, such as Team Flare Grunt costing you your Supporter for the turn and only hitting your opponent's Active, the rest of the card pool can make it abusive because it can easily be stacked with other effects. Once this two-player game turns into solitaire, I'm out... and we've either been experiencing or flirting with that for a while now. Not just from the disruption/control side either, but from raw power decks that have fast, reliable set ups and then just take KO after KO, either with easily replaced glass cannons or hard to stop steamrollers.

To summarize, Energy removal tactics are viewed in a negative light by Pokémon TCG players because they are rarely balanced and often force a fast paced game to slow to a crawl... for the player on the receiving end. Properly balanced this isn't an issue; you'll still have stuff to do on your turn and your opponent will have paid a fair price to strike at your Energy. This is not me disagreeing with the psychological impact disruption/control effects have on the other player. This is me explaining why especially Energy removing Trainers are kind of like the "chip" damage of the Pokémon TCG. Plus as stated, the seemingly low percentage of these cards "making a difference" may be because of several variables we can at best qualify, but not quantify. Luck of the draw. Luck of the coin flip. Luck of the match up. An opponent making a bad play.
 
Otaku said:
Energy removal having a negative connotation is quite appropriate with how it has been implemented in the Pokémon TCG. Disruption (and its Evolved form, Control) are about you playing and enjoying the game while your opponent? Your opponent may literally be forced to sit there and do nothing. Most frustrating, especially in a fast-paced game like Pokémon. Properly designed, balanced game play makes sure that the resource management involved is as important as the mechanics of battling; your opponent may deny you a resource but they are paying an appropriate price for it and you've still got other things you may do.

Notice how that ain't Pokémon.

The (relatively) short version is that barring specific times during the game's history, your one manual Energy attachment for the turn should be worth more than an Item card. Even when we have what seems like a fair trade, such as Team Flare Grunt costing you your Supporter for the turn and only hitting your opponent's Active, the rest of the card pool can make it abusive because it can easily be stacked with other effects. Once this two-player game turns into solitaire, I'm out... and we've either been experiencing or flirting with that for a while now. Not just from the disruption/control side either, but from raw power decks that have fast, reliable set ups and then just take KO after KO, either with easily replaced glass cannons or hard to stop steamrollers.

To summarize, Energy removal tactics are viewed in a negative light by Pokémon TCG players because they are rarely balanced and often force a fast paced game to slow to a crawl... for the player on the receiving end. Properly balanced this isn't an issue; you'll still have stuff to do on your turn and your opponent will have paid a fair price to strike at your Energy. This is not me disagreeing with the psychological impact disruption/control effects have on the other player. This is me explaining why especially Energy removing Trainers are kind of like the "chip" damage of the Pokémon TCG. Plus as stated, the seemingly low percentage of these cards "making a difference" may be because of several variables we can at best qualify, but not quantify. Luck of the draw. Luck of the coin flip. Luck of the match up. An opponent making a bad play.
Click to expand...
No worries yo, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I just hadn't quite put it in to thought. :p
It is very true that in a game where Energy is literally the determining factor of attacking or not being discarded after using the (typically) one time attachment for that turn is absolutely irritating. It does bring a form of "insult to injury" that other cards don't quite.
Also, I agree on your personal condition of leaving if the game becomes solitaire-esque. It honestly becomes extremely boring at that rate and what's the point of a game with no interaction?

Finally, I really wish they would stop trying to make cards that remove Energy as a whole. I understand decks like Yveltal-EX and M Mewtwo Y can become out of control at times, but still... that's not the way to solve an issue like that.

Good points all around.

-Asmer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top