Eight Cards To Be Banned from Japan's Expanded Format!

@Otaku

My personal stance is we just need to stop using the term degenerate as some kind of catch all term for cards, decks, or strategies that we view as bad form or that devolve into 2 player solitaire. Especially since it doesn't make much of a leap to than turn around and use the term to attack other players.

I understand that linguistically it is nice to have a catch all but maybe we just need something that can be used to describe decks but can't be used as an insult to players.
 
Due to its other uses in language, I think you make a fair point @orthusaku I think just referring to a deck as solitaire should suffice. I don't know if we need more than that for lock decks which operate in such a fashion. For tank decks that hit hard enough (and/or soak damage enough) that it becomes useless useless useless to fight back, I've often described them as "steam roller" decks.

It wasn't originally a Jojo's reference, but as steam rollers are a kind of road roller, I consider that a nice bonus.
 
TokenDuelist said:
There's nothing more boring than solitaire decks to me. I can see why some people get joy out of it, but they feel the least creative imo. They also contribute to a bad game state so it's good that they're addressing this.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a true "solitaire deck" in Pokémon because you're playing against another person. The point of a "solitaire deck" is not to win against yourself, it's to stop your opponent from stopping you from winning. The closest thing to a solitaire deck is not a control deck, but a deck like Reshizard where you're mostly playing against consistency rather than an opponent. The most creative decks are control decks. With them, you're not trying to win by doing something faster than another person, you're trying to win by stopping your opponent from winning. The way you go about that changes with every matchup, unlike Reshizard or other similar decks, which has the same strategy every single game. You are also often not following the conventional way of winning which is by definition, creative.
 
Otaku said:
Attention please! @Everyone, but especially @JL_muserwolves @TokenDuelist @JakeTheGearHeart @orthusaku @Zeatap @Javi Blizz
  1. Always ask if you are okay losing to the deck you love playing.
  2. There can be more than one kind of "toxic" deck.
I used to love locking down my opponent and seeing them helpless turn after turn... until someone pointed out my hypocrisy as I hate facing such a deck. XD Honestly, its kind of sadistic. But wait! I also love powering through my opponent with Pokémon that are either so big, durable or disposable that it doesn't matter what my opponent does... except once again, I hate facing such decks. Solitaire in a 2-player game is lame. It all comes down to issues with game balance and pacing; the powers that be made a bunch of cards that would have been fine except they can be used T1.

Well, fine relative to the rest of the metagame and commonly accepted "balance" of the TCG, but that's a rant for another day. ;) Now, if y'all wish to continue debating each other... okay, go ahead. My stance happens to be a blend of your own stances, but that doesn't mean any of you will agree with me. XD Just to clarify though: solitaire decks are boring to face whether it is one-sided because I cannot play any cards or because the actions I can take won't make any difference, or require absurd amounts of luck to make a difference. Even then, the issue is also a deck achieving such a state both quickly and reliably; if you have to play a stellar game but I have a fair chance to disrupt the strategy's set up before it gets going, then it goes back to being a "me" problem for not recognizing I had my chance. XD
Click to expand...
I am fine losing to a control deck because I'd most often be playing my own control deck, and I'd be trying to control their deck as well. If I'm playing a deck like Reshizard, it's my fault for not being as creative as them. If I can't play any cards, then that means they beat me in deck building. Not all of Pokémon is about playing the actual game, it's about preparing to play the game– it's about building decks that win, and give you enjoyment in the process. If people, like me, want to invest the hours it takes to learn and test a control deck (unlike most Pokémon decks where if you know one, you know generally how to play them all), they should be able to do so.
 
JakeTheGearHeart said:
I am fine losing to a control deck because I'd most often be playing my own control deck, and I'd be trying to control their deck as well. If I'm playing a deck like Reshizard, it's my fault for not being as creative as them. If I can't play any cards, then that means they beat me in deck building. Not all of Pokémon is about playing the actual game, it's about preparing to play the game– it's about building decks that win, and give you enjoyment in the process. If people, like me, want to invest the hours it takes to learn and test a control deck (unlike most Pokémon decks where if you know one, you know generally how to play them all), they should be able to do so.
Click to expand...

I do see where you are coming from, but any deck that can't really let your opponent play just makes a match boring most of the time. You seem to have taken this quite personally, but I assure you I've played control decks in both Pokemon and yugioh before so I do understand the appeal.
 
JakeTheGearHeart said:
There is no such thing as a true "solitaire deck" in Pokémon because you're playing against another person. The point of a "solitaire deck" is not to win against yourself, it's to stop your opponent from stopping you from winning. The closest thing to a solitaire deck is not a control deck, but a deck like Reshizard where you're mostly playing against consistency rather than an opponent. The most creative decks are control decks. With them, you're not trying to win by doing something faster than another person, you're trying to win by stopping your opponent from winning. The way you go about that changes with every matchup, unlike Reshizard or other similar decks, which has the same strategy every single game. You are also often not following the conventional way of winning which is by definition, creative.
Click to expand...

@The Last Shaymin Make sure you read this as well; I'm answering JakeTheGearHeart but I noticed you liked the posts being referenced... and even if I didn't disagree with most of what was said, they're still built upon a misunderstanding.

When folks refer to a solitaire deck in the Pokémon TCG, they are talking about one where you render your opponent's actions all but meaningless, and in short order. It can be a bit confusing because of things like counters or dueling solitaire decks (as oxymoronic as that sounds). It is quite possible that a particular Reshizard build has ascended to "solitaire" status. A deck isn't referred to as "solitaire" because of its win condition, but because of the method by which it achieves that win condition. It is about winning without your opponent having a real chance of fighting back; barring extreme luck or misplays, it has become a one-player experience even if it is technically still a 2-Player game.

Creativity is subjective, or at the very least, very difficult to analyze. A lot like skill, actually. Who is being more creative or skilled: the player with a deck that runs half-a-dozen counters to deal with the metagame, or the deck that has to use the same tight list to deal with whatever it faces? Is it more creative/skilled running different cards, or finding ways to use the same cards to handle different situations?

I've been playing for about 20 years; control decks are in no way "creative" to me because they have a long history in the TCG. Out of the major strategies, the one I've seen least is mill. Mill typically involves at least some control elements, and it isn't uncommon for stall/control decks to include some mill. What I am talking about, though, are decks where milling is the main focus and happens most turns. Which isn't to say that is the most creative; rather, as I haven't encountered competitive mill decks too often, the approach remains novel.

It really sounds like you're just sick of Reshizard decks - and I doubt you're alone - but you're trying to make that into something it isn't. I'll hold off discussing JakeTheGearHeart's second comment, as it was built upon a blatant misunderstanding of what is meant by "solitaire deck".

Note: Sadly I had to edit things quite a bit. I made the mistake of posting when I knew I was in a rush, so some sentences were extraneous, poorly worded, and/or poorly positioned within the paragraph.
 
Last edited:
Otaku said:
I've been playing for about 20 years; control decks are in no way "creative" to me because they have a long history in the TCG. Out of the major strategies, the one I've seen least is mill. Mill typically involves at least some control elements, and it isn't uncommon for stall/control decks to include some mill. What I am talking about, though, are decks where milling is the main focus and happens most turns. Which isn't to say that is the most creative; rather, as I haven't encountered competitive mill decks too often, the approach remains novel.
Click to expand...

Just quoting myself for an addendum to clarify; there have been mill decks accused of being solitaire decks. The one I remember is Durant (NVI) as it was control/mill, and I wasn't sure what to make of it. Unfortunately, it was big at a time I was barely able to play/follow the game, so my experience with it first hand is in the PTCGO's Legacy Format where it isn't as strong and seems just about right.
 
As someone who has been playing control and stall since 1998 across many different collectable games, I'll put this out there:

- control and stall builds thrive where opponents are displaying predictable patterns and there's a lot of overlap between them. In Standard, control becomes a stronger play when more sets are added on top of the Standard pool (you tend to see them more in Q3 and Q4), so it's surprising that Pidgeotto Control is a thing so early on in the season, but at the same time, a lot of the Standard meta is everyone mashing their Tonka trucks together.
In Expanded, because of the massive cardpool, control strategies play super strong (look at Zoroark Seismitoad last season) because the power of control cards never change--aggro decks change up faster and more frequently because power-creep is a thing. Control cards tend to stay the same and only get replaced if a vastly superior upgrade comes along that outclasses the old card in every way possible (Xerosic VS Faba).

- This may come across as harsh, but no matter what level of play you're at, you have no right to complain about the type of deck you're up against. If you're playing a deck that runs with the tier-1 meta, and someone comes along with a control deck that has you dead to rights (whether your deck loses to it, or you're unprepared for it). Congratulations, you are now the type of opponent they were preying on.

- Some of you have only played Pokemon and that's your only reference of stall, control, and mill decks. Believe me, things can be SO. MUCH. WORSE.
In 2008, I built a Yugioh deck around Self-Destruct Button and took it to three Regionals (equivalent of Pokemon's Cities tournaments). Imagine this: I have a deck where you MAY get to play 1 turn. If not, you are playing zero turns for the entire match (Yugioh rounds were 40 minutes at least. Pokemon's is 50). You only get to play the game during end of match procedure, but both of us only get 2 turns. Imagine a stalemate thats 92% consistent in what it does and the whole game is boiled down to 4 turns, and you only get two of them.
It is not the fault of the control player that you're not having fun--that's all on you. Fun is subjective and the control player CAN make it fun. But again, in any level of play, you never know what you're going to see.

- Decks that are referred to as "toxic". 99% of the time, people throw the term "toxic" around loosely as "This deck is used too much and I don't like it", but tend to not think if the deck actually poses a problem in the game. Is Reshiram & Charizard-GX with Welder "toxic"? No. Is it good? Absolutely. But not game breaking.
For Expanded. Is Zoroark-GX "toxic", even when it WAS the big deck on campus? No. Was it extremely good? Absolutely. Ironically, Zoroark-GX DID suss out cards that were actually toxic in the game.
Now we have turn 1 hand disruption combos. Are those "toxic"? Absolutely. The reason being is that there is nothing any deck can do if they happen to go second. Pokemon doesn't have a side deck, nor does it have Traps/Instants/Hand Traps that can prevent an opponent from furthering this sort of strategy.
TCPi has been very consistently--and continues to display--that they are VERY much keeping in line the notion of players being able to get AT LEAST ONE TURN of uninterrupted "you get to play the game" as possible. Between the new Supporter rule and the banlist update doing away with almost all hand disruption, these are good changes.
 
@Merovingian

I just deleted a massive response to your comment, wondering if perhaps I read it in an incorrect tone. Yes, bigger than what I'm actually posting. Had to edit this one after posting as well, because I just didn't make things as clear or concise as I wanted.

There is a difference between having a right to complain, and complaining being right. Games exist to be enjoyed, usually by the people playing them. The Pokémon TCG is one such game, even when it comes to Organized play. I'd actually argue we ought to spam decks built around combos that shouldn't be allowed, to spur on the powers-that-be in correcting the situation... but this carries the risk of them thinking we want things that way. o_O

Are there other games where things are worse? Yeah, but that doesn't make it a good thing when it happens here. Can a person spoil their enjoyment of a game by dwelling on the negative, to the point that even good things seem bad to them? Sure... which is why we let folks complain while asking they explain. The new rule about no T1 supporters is likely a bad one, just like the rule about no attacks T1 is a bad one. When Supporters were first created, it was so that we could still have potent Trainers without the issue of folks using two, three, even a dozen such Trainers in the same turn. Some effects are fine if they are once-per-turn. Some are fine so long as they don't work T1.
 
Last edited:
Otaku said:
There is a difference between having a right to complain, and complaining being right. Games exist to be enjoyed, usually by the people playing them. The Pokémon TCG is one such game, even when it comes to Organized play. I'd actually argue we ought to spam decks built around combos that shouldn't be allowed, to spur on the powers-that-be in correcting the situation...but this carries the risk of them thinking we want things that way. o_O
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I'm all about, "well, if you printed stuff that makes this certain combo unhealthy for the game, I'm going to do it!" As you said, it's the only way to make necessary change. It took Zoroark-GX to point out that Puzzle of Time, Hex Maniac, Ghetsis, and Lusamine that they were bad for the game. The only issue that comes up is that most players either don't have a reference point at which things COULD be toxic, and/or players who don't understand the "unwritten but understood"--the moral code-- that the powers that be utilize for going after necessary change.

But having played other games, I will say that Pokemon is pretty upfront about what would necessetate a ban: things that restrict your opponent's first turn plays. And up to this point, almost all of their bans (toninclude parts that allow it to happen) follow this, the exception being Lusamine.

Having played Yugioh for years, they were REALLY inconsistent. Even if you were entrenched in the meta, you would only see 75% of a current banlist and go "I saw that coming", the other 25% of bans/restricts were stuff that no one asked for, no one wanted, and stuff that was on no ones radar and wouldn't have been a problem if it was left alone--but was hit anyway. AND they wouldn't give an explanation on any of their bans and restrictions.

I don't think that Pokemon's R&D sees players making broken combos and believe that is what we want. The Expanded format is continuously growing and it's inevitable that more bans are required in a format that is meant to not rotate. It's that we are at a point where the format needs to be more closely monitored. At least they are on top of things

Otaku said:
Are there other games where things are worse? Yeah, but that doesn't make it a good thing when it happens here.
Click to expand...

No, that was really for more context for players going "I don't like playing against control decks, they are SOOO UNINTERACTIVE". So I listed an (extreme) example of a deck that literally took away almost all aspects of interaction whatsoever.
You're right that because it's bad somewhere else doesn't make something thats kind of bad in Pokemon better. Again, it's more about talking to someone who doesn't know what to look for when calling something like control decks "mindless/not interactive". T1 hand donk is the only form of nearly interationless gameplay Pokemon has. Control and mill let you play the game, they just might be boring for the recipient because of control doing what it's meant to do.

Otaku said:
Can a person spoil their enjoyment of a game by dwelling on the negative, to the point that even good things seem bad to them? Sure... which is why we let folks complain while asking they explain.
Click to expand...

But also provide context and correction when complaints about how a popular (but not metabreaking) Tier 1 deck is "broken" when it's not--it's just good at that moment.

I have no problem helping and guiding players do better. And one of those things is having people understand what "broken" actually is, what "toxic" actually is, what is "interactiveless". What a "busted" deck actually is. Dwelling on the idea of "Tier-1 = broken/bad for the meta" isn't good in anyones mindset--especially newer players. There's several colloqualisms that exist in the game. I think it's best to nip the misuse of them by new players quickly because it's very easy to get salty and in a bad mindset thinking like "tier-1 is bad. Control is bad. Anything that isn't what I think is okay is bad."

Otaku said:
The new rule about no T1 supporters is likely a bad one, just like the rule about no attacks T1 is a bad one. When Supporters were first created, it was so that we could still have potent Trainers without the issue of folks using two, three, even a dozen such Trainers in the same turn. Some effects are fine if they are once-per-turn. Some are fine so long as they don't work T1.
Click to expand...

But we all got used to the "no attack on T1" and agreed that it meant that there wouldn't be any more games where one player would open terribly and the other player would win because they didn't open with a terrible starter.

I'm sure we will see Supporters and Items in the future that will say things like "This cannot be used on your first turn" and maintain a power balance.

It's new and different and weird. Going second where you get the first Supporter AND attack is going to make Expanded weird. The big downside I see is that it places a HEVAY HEAVY emphasis on Shaymin-EX and Dedenne-GX. That doofy Dedenne-GX alt art can't get here fast enough.

Makes me glad I'm only going to Dallas this year. I (more than likely) dodge that bullet for this year.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so just about everything else was cleared up by Merovingian's last post, except this

Merovingian said:
But we all got used to the "no attack on T1" and agreed that it meant that there would be any more games where one player would open terribly and the other player would win because they didn't open with a terrible starter.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure what you're saying here. Literally, I'm having a bit of a reading comprehension fail. XD

If you're saying that we'll get used to having no T1 Supporter... I agree. If you're saying it is for the best, then I disagree, and please check behind the Spoiler.

It is like with T1 attacks; the best thing is for the powers-that-be to have designed cards so we didn't have to worry about donks e.g nothing is being designed that has access to an attack that can KO something during the first turn of the game. Or innovate a new mechanic to give us the best of both worlds. Supporters provide powerful Trainer-based effects but keep us from spamming them T1 - barring Lt. Surge's Strategy. How about creating a Pokémon "class" called a Starter, and only those can attack on a player's first turn? Probably be a bit more too it, but I probably indulged to much just bringing it up. ;)

If those weren't options, then once the problem was recognized instead of "No attacks T1" I'd rather the rule was the barely-more-complicated "Ignore all damage done by attacks on a player's first turn." Yes, meaning neither player gets to do damage. Yes, the powers-that-be could still screw it up by making a bunch of stuff that scored KO's via effects, but I'm already engaging in wishful thinking, so lets pretend they actually wouldn't do that, or at least, not right away. XD

Now, if we still disagree after that... okay. Thanks for trying to explain, and thanks for listening.
 
Otaku said:
@The Last Shaymin Make sure you read this as well; I'm answering JakeTheGearHeart but I noticed you liked the posts being referenced... and even if I didn't disagree with most of what was said, they're still built upon a misunderstanding.

When folks refer to a solitaire deck in the Pokémon TCG, they are talking about one where you render your opponent's actions all but meaningless, and in short order. It can be a bit confusing because of things like counters or dueling solitaire decks (as oxymoronic as that sounds). It is quite possible that a particular Reshizard build has ascended to "solitaire" status. A deck isn't referred to as "solitaire" because of its win condition, but because of the method by which it achieves that win condition. It is about winning without your opponent having a real chance of fighting back; barring extreme luck or misplays, it has become a one-player experience even if it is technically still a 2-Player game.

Creativity is subjective, or at the very least, very difficult to analyze. A lot like skill, actually. Who is being more creative or skilled: the player with a deck that runs half-a-dozen counters to deal with the metagame, or the deck that has to use the same tight list to deal with whatever it faces? Is it more creative/skilled running different cards, or finding ways to use the same cards to handle different situations?

I've been playing for about 20 years; control decks are in no way "creative" to me because they have a long history in the TCG. Out of the major strategies, the one I've seen least is mill. Mill typically involves at least some control elements, and it isn't uncommon for stall/control decks to include some mill. What I am talking about, though, are decks where milling is the main focus and happens most turns. Which isn't to say that is the most creative; rather, as I haven't encountered competitive mill decks too often, the approach remains novel.

It really sounds like you're just sick of Reshizard decks - and I doubt you're alone - but you're trying to make that into something it isn't. I'll hold off discussing JakeTheGearHeart's second comment, as it was built upon a blatant misunderstanding of what is meant by "solitaire deck".

Note: Sadly I had to edit things quite a bit. I made the mistake of posting when I knew I was in a rush, so some sentences were extraneous, poorly worded, and/or poorly positioned within the paragraph.
Click to expand...
I think we need a middle ground between control and big Tag Teams. And I don't think we're gonna be getting one anytime soon due to this major power creep as evidenced by the ridiculous increase in HP for Pokémon V. I liked the formats best where we had decks like Plasma and Darkrai ruling the format. They were both decks that played for the long game and every choice you made mattered. You had to predict what your opponent would want to do, not just respond to them, unlike now where you just try and power up a big basic and maximize your chance to draw into the cards that will win you the game. It's really the game designers' fault here. They're pushing away people towards solitaire decks because big basic decks just really aren't interesting to many people. I don't deny that the game still has a lot of skill involved. But that doesn't mean the game is not boring.
 
Aye, @JakeTheGearHeart while I don't agree with everything you just said, going into those differences would be mere quibbles. The powers-that-be have designed the game in this manner, whether intentionally or not. What excites one player doesn't excite another, and while I can't speak for everyone, there's an unpleasant familiarity in the current situation. I've avoided it because I've been busy so most of my play over the last few months - when it was happening at all - occurred via the PTCGO's Theme Format.

Okay, one minor quibble, and I'll hide it behind spoiler tags if you don't care to see it.

I thank you for the indulgence. I've long been convinced that the issue isn't HP scores being too high, but rather they've been too low for too long, especially relative to damage output per turn. It limits what the designers can do to spice up the game. If you need to hit X damage per turn for reliable 2HKOs, then doing [0.5X - Y + beneficial effect] only matters if the "beneficial effect" is disproportionately good in the metagame. *waves at tormentor Seismitoad-EX* and there is a huge risk when attacks do [2x+detrimental effect] because the "detrimental effect" has to be really bad for the whole shebang not to be a net positive. Yeah, oversimplified example but I wanted to keep this relatively brief.

I'd also favor "front-loading" HP scores for Evolution lines, because the TCG does not work like the video games; you have a single-player mode there where you can practice and build your Pokémon but in the TCG, the "leveling up and Evolving" experience is happening at the same time the "battle another player" experience is happening as well. So if a Stage 2 has 150 HP, it makes more sense to give the Evolving Basic 100 HP and the Stage 1 of the line 130 HP, just to buy them more time (using current HP scores and damage outputs).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top