RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
NO!!!
Trexroarr said:
NO!!!
Fairy-Type Representation in the TCG
- Thread starter Hegafire
- Start date
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
What's so bad about ONE more type? I personally think there need to be more types (not fairy, though). I don't like how Fighting and Rock/Ground have the same type. Grass/Bug and Water/Ice make sense, but I don't know what Nosepass has in common with Hitmontop. I think as long as no one type hit most everything for Weakness (Fighting), and there weren't sooooo many types that Weakness/Resistance rarely came up that it would be fine. But let's have it stop there; I really didn't agree with a new type to begin with.
What's so bad about ONE more type? I personally think there need to be more types (not fairy, though). I don't like how Fighting and Rock/Ground have the same type. Grass/Bug and Water/Ice make sense, but I don't know what Nosepass has in common with Hitmontop. I think as long as no one type hit most everything for Weakness (Fighting), and there weren't sooooo many types that Weakness/Resistance rarely came up that it would be fine. But let's have it stop there; I really didn't agree with a new type to begin with.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
Dude, it was already ONE more type so many years ago. 6 was decent amount, and we are talking about types using their own energy. 8 is already crossing the threshold.
A brand new type must not do either of these things:
1. be redundant
2. dilute the other types
Dragon and colorless don't dilute the other types for the sole fact that they don't use their own energy. Making a brand new color that uses only colorless, or uses multi energy is redundant. Why not make them colorless or dragon, perhaps they can change the dragon to mystical type, which I have been mentioning in my earlier posts, because fairies and dragons both have the whole wizards, castles, and all that stuff in common.
As I said from threads long past, if you want a new type, with its own energy of course, another must be removed, excluding colorless and dragon. It's the way it is.
But I'm glad the people at Japan making this game, has the "Game" in trading card game in their minds, because they are for sure not going to make a new type, unless it brings something new to the game. (Last I checked, the 8 types that use their own energy each interact the same way, just with different colors, so adding a new type with its new energy doesn't add to the game.) The makers of this game in Japan are surely not going to pull adding a new type out from nowhere.
It is also what it is, perhaps the people of Japan who made this game didn't plan ahead? Why not call Fighting type "Earth" type? Usually melee combat is of the "earth" element, at least in other literature, and fiction. They could have called the dragon type the mystic or mythic, or magic type, and lumped fairies with it, and gold is pretty mystical for a card border. But nope, they had to call it dragon.
Most likely, fairies will be colorless.
Another one some have said is psychic.
Fighting symbolizes physical attack
Psychic symbolizes magical attack
Rock and ground types are more likely, in other fiction, to have high physical attacks, so why not lump them with fighting.
Fairies, in other fiction, are physically weak, and use magic. Why not lump them with psychic, and move Ghost to Dark. That would make the psychic psychic pokemon weak against all the darkness, and ghost, which is now darkness, will have it's own darkness weakness.
So let me justify moving ghosts to Dark.
1. In the games, ghosts are strong against psychic and ghost.
Ok, all psychic psychic pokemon now all have the darkness symbol under the weakness, and no longer holds the psychic symbol. (I mean, why put ghost in Psychic, only for psychic to be weak against psychic, while in the games, psychic doesn't do much against psychic? Besides, psychic are weak against ghost and dark, and now that ghost is in darkness, all psychic pokemon from Gen 6 onwards will have darkness as weakness. It's so simple.)
All ghost darkness pokemon have the darkness symbol under the weakness.
2. In the games, ghosts are weak against ghost and dark.
All ghosts have a darkness symbol underneath the weakness. Guess what? Ghosts are now darkness, and dark is still darkness.
Put fairy in either colorless or psychic. Move ghost to darkness.
Ghosts in darkness fit flavorfully too. Ghost attacks are usually attacks of the night, aka darkness. Dark attacks are usually sneak attacks, or cheap shots, covert attacks. Do you know what kind of people do covert attacks? Covert ops. And when do covert ops operate best? In the night, aka darkness.
Fairy, whether it will have a white, or purple frame, will have metal weakness no matter what. Considering how psychic pokemon take half damage from fairies, it totally works, because all psychics have darkness weakness, so it won't be weak against fairies anymore.
Sometimes rather than adding new types, the 18 types can still be shuffled around the existing 10 types in the TCG.
Mora said:
Dude, it was already ONE more type so many years ago. 6 was decent amount, and we are talking about types using their own energy. 8 is already crossing the threshold.
A brand new type must not do either of these things:
1. be redundant
2. dilute the other types
Dragon and colorless don't dilute the other types for the sole fact that they don't use their own energy. Making a brand new color that uses only colorless, or uses multi energy is redundant. Why not make them colorless or dragon, perhaps they can change the dragon to mystical type, which I have been mentioning in my earlier posts, because fairies and dragons both have the whole wizards, castles, and all that stuff in common.
As I said from threads long past, if you want a new type, with its own energy of course, another must be removed, excluding colorless and dragon. It's the way it is.
But I'm glad the people at Japan making this game, has the "Game" in trading card game in their minds, because they are for sure not going to make a new type, unless it brings something new to the game. (Last I checked, the 8 types that use their own energy each interact the same way, just with different colors, so adding a new type with its new energy doesn't add to the game.) The makers of this game in Japan are surely not going to pull adding a new type out from nowhere.
It is also what it is, perhaps the people of Japan who made this game didn't plan ahead? Why not call Fighting type "Earth" type? Usually melee combat is of the "earth" element, at least in other literature, and fiction. They could have called the dragon type the mystic or mythic, or magic type, and lumped fairies with it, and gold is pretty mystical for a card border. But nope, they had to call it dragon.
Most likely, fairies will be colorless.
Another one some have said is psychic.
Fighting symbolizes physical attack
Psychic symbolizes magical attack
Rock and ground types are more likely, in other fiction, to have high physical attacks, so why not lump them with fighting.
Fairies, in other fiction, are physically weak, and use magic. Why not lump them with psychic, and move Ghost to Dark. That would make the psychic psychic pokemon weak against all the darkness, and ghost, which is now darkness, will have it's own darkness weakness.
So let me justify moving ghosts to Dark.
1. In the games, ghosts are strong against psychic and ghost.
Ok, all psychic psychic pokemon now all have the darkness symbol under the weakness, and no longer holds the psychic symbol. (I mean, why put ghost in Psychic, only for psychic to be weak against psychic, while in the games, psychic doesn't do much against psychic? Besides, psychic are weak against ghost and dark, and now that ghost is in darkness, all psychic pokemon from Gen 6 onwards will have darkness as weakness. It's so simple.)
All ghost darkness pokemon have the darkness symbol under the weakness.
2. In the games, ghosts are weak against ghost and dark.
All ghosts have a darkness symbol underneath the weakness. Guess what? Ghosts are now darkness, and dark is still darkness.
Put fairy in either colorless or psychic. Move ghost to darkness.
Ghosts in darkness fit flavorfully too. Ghost attacks are usually attacks of the night, aka darkness. Dark attacks are usually sneak attacks, or cheap shots, covert attacks. Do you know what kind of people do covert attacks? Covert ops. And when do covert ops operate best? In the night, aka darkness.
Fairy, whether it will have a white, or purple frame, will have metal weakness no matter what. Considering how psychic pokemon take half damage from fairies, it totally works, because all psychics have darkness weakness, so it won't be weak against fairies anymore.
Sometimes rather than adding new types, the 18 types can still be shuffled around the existing 10 types in the TCG.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about now.
I completely agree with what you said about Ghosts being Dark, but I still don't see the problem with having more types.
Why? I mean is this in writing anywhere? Darkness and Metal diluted the other types.
They won't have to be redundant unless the people who make them derp. What do you mean by diluting the types? You seem to only define diluting by whether they have their own energy or not. I would think the only issue with diluting types would be Weakness and Resistance becomes pointless because there are so many types that it just never comes up and just having more types than we have colors in the spectrum that it just becomes a big confusing (and pointless) mess. Don't get me wrong, I like how Colorless can use any type of energy, and Dragons use different energy types, but if we had a new type get a new energy, I just don't see it being a big deal. Just use Fairy Energy with Fairies exactly like we're been using Grass Energy with Grass and Water Energy with Water.
signofzeta said:
I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about now.
I completely agree with what you said about Ghosts being Dark, but I still don't see the problem with having more types.
signofzeta said:
Why? I mean is this in writing anywhere? Darkness and Metal diluted the other types.
They won't have to be redundant unless the people who make them derp. What do you mean by diluting the types? You seem to only define diluting by whether they have their own energy or not. I would think the only issue with diluting types would be Weakness and Resistance becomes pointless because there are so many types that it just never comes up and just having more types than we have colors in the spectrum that it just becomes a big confusing (and pointless) mess. Don't get me wrong, I like how Colorless can use any type of energy, and Dragons use different energy types, but if we had a new type get a new energy, I just don't see it being a big deal. Just use Fairy Energy with Fairies exactly like we're been using Grass Energy with Grass and Water Energy with Water.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
Again, adding new types with their own energy is redundant.
For example, there is a white car and a red car of the same model. They look different, but they are really the same.
Now tell me, what kind of new things could you come up with, with the new fairy type, and its own energy, that couldn't be done by including fairy with an existing type?
Darkness, interacts with ghost type to differentiate it from the psychic type
Metal, interacts with the ice type to differentiate from the water type.
When I said that it was already one more when darkness and metal came out in the past, it it was one more. 6 is enough, and unless a new type adds to gameplay (read my car example), then a new type with its own energy should never be added.
I also don't think you understand the dilution.
Ok, you have a concentrated product, and you add water. You diluted it. Adding more water doesn't make the product the same concentration as before. By adding fairy, one type is being diluted because there are way too many types. The people in Japan who make this game won't add a new type unless it offers something new, like Dragon being multi energy requirement attack type.
In the rulebook, the one you can download online, gives the strategies for each type.
Grass heals, and has the drain type of attack, where you take damage counters off.
Fire does the highest damage at cost of discarding energy, as well as burns
Water does direct damage to bench pokemon
Lightning recycles energy from the discard pile, as well as paralyzes
Psychic has the most types of status ailments (which is why ghost is probably psychic)
Fighting has combo attacks with coin flips
Darkness has card discard
Metal has damage prevention
The truth is that I don't think each type is unique with it's own strategy. I think each new type should have its own unique strategy, and any newer type must be different from the others in strategy. Weakness and resistances don't count. A fighting card with water weakness interacts with water the same way a colorless card with lightning weakness interacts with lightning.
Now tell me what new strategy does fairy offer?
Mora said:
Again, adding new types with their own energy is redundant.
For example, there is a white car and a red car of the same model. They look different, but they are really the same.
Now tell me, what kind of new things could you come up with, with the new fairy type, and its own energy, that couldn't be done by including fairy with an existing type?
Darkness, interacts with ghost type to differentiate it from the psychic type
Metal, interacts with the ice type to differentiate from the water type.
When I said that it was already one more when darkness and metal came out in the past, it it was one more. 6 is enough, and unless a new type adds to gameplay (read my car example), then a new type with its own energy should never be added.
I also don't think you understand the dilution.
Ok, you have a concentrated product, and you add water. You diluted it. Adding more water doesn't make the product the same concentration as before. By adding fairy, one type is being diluted because there are way too many types. The people in Japan who make this game won't add a new type unless it offers something new, like Dragon being multi energy requirement attack type.
In the rulebook, the one you can download online, gives the strategies for each type.
Grass heals, and has the drain type of attack, where you take damage counters off.
Fire does the highest damage at cost of discarding energy, as well as burns
Water does direct damage to bench pokemon
Lightning recycles energy from the discard pile, as well as paralyzes
Psychic has the most types of status ailments (which is why ghost is probably psychic)
Fighting has combo attacks with coin flips
Darkness has card discard
Metal has damage prevention
The truth is that I don't think each type is unique with it's own strategy. I think each new type should have its own unique strategy, and any newer type must be different from the others in strategy. Weakness and resistances don't count. A fighting card with water weakness interacts with water the same way a colorless card with lightning weakness interacts with lightning.
Now tell me what new strategy does fairy offer?
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
Signofzeta, I dont agree with everything you have to say with how Fairy type should be treated, but your justification for moving Ghost to Dark is spot on.
Signofzeta, I dont agree with everything you have to say with how Fairy type should be treated, but your justification for moving Ghost to Dark is spot on.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
But by that logic, every type is redundant, and not just new ones.
Later on in your post, you even had a list of each of the different types and what their strategies were, so Darkness and Metal did add to gameplay with their unique strategies. Metal brought the damage resistance, and I believe Darkness gave rise to the first disruption decks. I don't know about way back when, but their was a Sharpedo that discarded your opponent's hand, a Shiftry that shuffled your opponent's Active into their deck, and the whole discarding cards falls under the veil of disruption as well.
I wasn't sure specifically how you defined dilution. Now that I know it's just that, I have to say it doesn't really bother me. I don't feel that it's at the point where it's ridiculous quite yet.
That's hardly fair considering we know very little about Fairy type (like whether or not it even exist). I don't know what characteristics they will have, and I don't have to since I'm not the one making all of the cards. I'll try to brainstorm ideas later. I agree that they would have to do something different; I'm considering that as a given (unless they do something really stupid like make a card that can OHKO just about everything regardless of what it is... oh wait...).
signofzeta said:
But by that logic, every type is redundant, and not just new ones.
signofzeta said:
Later on in your post, you even had a list of each of the different types and what their strategies were, so Darkness and Metal did add to gameplay with their unique strategies. Metal brought the damage resistance, and I believe Darkness gave rise to the first disruption decks. I don't know about way back when, but their was a Sharpedo that discarded your opponent's hand, a Shiftry that shuffled your opponent's Active into their deck, and the whole discarding cards falls under the veil of disruption as well.
signofzeta said:
I wasn't sure specifically how you defined dilution. Now that I know it's just that, I have to say it doesn't really bother me. I don't feel that it's at the point where it's ridiculous quite yet.
signofzeta said:
That's hardly fair considering we know very little about Fairy type (like whether or not it even exist). I don't know what characteristics they will have, and I don't have to since I'm not the one making all of the cards. I'll try to brainstorm ideas later. I agree that they would have to do something different; I'm considering that as a given (unless they do something really stupid like make a card that can OHKO just about everything regardless of what it is... oh wait...).
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
I assume you don't play sealed or draft.
For every 1 type added, the less cards there will be of one specific type. I assume you knew that already
I am just glad you aren't making the game.
Mora said:
I assume you don't play sealed or draft.
For every 1 type added, the less cards there will be of one specific type. I assume you knew that already
I am just glad you aren't making the game.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
You know, from purely a "balance" aspect, moving Ghost to Darkness, Rock, Ground or both to Metal, Dragon to Fire and Flying to Lightning would even the types up quite a bit. (And they all fit to some degree, except maybe Flying to Lightning, but it makes more sense than moving Poison, Bug or Ice.) Darkness, Metal, Fire and Lightning only containing one type is a problem for the size of those types.
That being said, I don't think this will happen. Ghost to Darkness is possible, I guess, though. I'd like to see Rock to Metal as well, as Rock-Types currently don't get much love, and them belonging to Metal also makes sense. Ground staying with Fighting instead of also moving makes some sense, too, as Ground-Types are often animal-based, and able to use Fighting moves.
Lightning and Fire are more problematic than Darkness and Metal, though, as they tend to get less support. (Eelektrik, Emboar and Chandelure basically sum up all their current support.) And I don't see an easy fix for that. I suppose if they did augment Darkness and Metal in numbers, they could just shift the focus of support to Fire and Lightning rather than Darkness and Metal. That could work.
You know, from purely a "balance" aspect, moving Ghost to Darkness, Rock, Ground or both to Metal, Dragon to Fire and Flying to Lightning would even the types up quite a bit. (And they all fit to some degree, except maybe Flying to Lightning, but it makes more sense than moving Poison, Bug or Ice.) Darkness, Metal, Fire and Lightning only containing one type is a problem for the size of those types.
That being said, I don't think this will happen. Ghost to Darkness is possible, I guess, though. I'd like to see Rock to Metal as well, as Rock-Types currently don't get much love, and them belonging to Metal also makes sense. Ground staying with Fighting instead of also moving makes some sense, too, as Ground-Types are often animal-based, and able to use Fighting moves.
Lightning and Fire are more problematic than Darkness and Metal, though, as they tend to get less support. (Eelektrik, Emboar and Chandelure basically sum up all their current support.) And I don't see an easy fix for that. I suppose if they did augment Darkness and Metal in numbers, they could just shift the focus of support to Fire and Lightning rather than Darkness and Metal. That could work.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
I agree, before they start adding more types, the first priority is to even out the types a bit. I am trying to figure out what other types could fit with fire or lightning, but I couldn't think of any at the moment. Rock to metal isn't a bad idea at all, considering the pokemon that have metal weakness is the ice portion of the water types, and in the games, rock is strong against ice.
So let's see
Grass has 2 types
Fire has 1
Water has 2
Lightning has 1
Psychic has 3
Fighting has 3
Darkness has 1
Metal has 1
Colorless has 2
Dragon has 1
I think colorless should be the most common type, so fairy going there isn't a bad idea. Dragon should be the least common type, so it can stay by itself. The problem is fixing Fire and Lightning. Moving Ghost to Darkness and Rock to Metal would definitely even things out. Fire and Lightning in other fiction have a close relationship of being the type focused on high damage, but I'd rather have them separate, because I think an even number like 8, 10, if dragon and colorless are included, is a good number of types for the game, and something like 9 or 11 total types feels odd.
RiverShock said:
I agree, before they start adding more types, the first priority is to even out the types a bit. I am trying to figure out what other types could fit with fire or lightning, but I couldn't think of any at the moment. Rock to metal isn't a bad idea at all, considering the pokemon that have metal weakness is the ice portion of the water types, and in the games, rock is strong against ice.
So let's see
Grass has 2 types
Fire has 1
Water has 2
Lightning has 1
Psychic has 3
Fighting has 3
Darkness has 1
Metal has 1
Colorless has 2
Dragon has 1
I think colorless should be the most common type, so fairy going there isn't a bad idea. Dragon should be the least common type, so it can stay by itself. The problem is fixing Fire and Lightning. Moving Ghost to Darkness and Rock to Metal would definitely even things out. Fire and Lightning in other fiction have a close relationship of being the type focused on high damage, but I'd rather have them separate, because I think an even number like 8, 10, if dragon and colorless are included, is a good number of types for the game, and something like 9 or 11 total types feels odd.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
There is no need to "balance" the amount of VG types to TCG types. Its fine as it is IMO (maybe the move of Ghost to Dark). When they say Metal they mean as in Steel and Iron materials which are different from rocks even though it makes some sense but the name is Metal not Ground or Earth (these 2 could have Rock, Metal and Ground as one). All other ones have nothing to do with the other.
If you want to continue doing the Fire and Lightning, both of them would fit in one. No need to have 1 for each.
There is no need to "balance" the amount of VG types to TCG types. Its fine as it is IMO (maybe the move of Ghost to Dark). When they say Metal they mean as in Steel and Iron materials which are different from rocks even though it makes some sense but the name is Metal not Ground or Earth (these 2 could have Rock, Metal and Ground as one). All other ones have nothing to do with the other.
If you want to continue doing the Fire and Lightning, both of them would fit in one. No need to have 1 for each.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
Yeah, I was thinking combining fire and lightning, but 7 types that use their own energy just feels wierd, but at least it would be better than 8, or even NINE as some people suggest.
But still, rock to metal. Maybe metal can be the very hard gimmick.
So back to the themes of each type, based on the new way I do it, and the flavor theme.
Grass grows, so it is the healing type.
Bug drains energy, like you know, those pesky mosquitos, but gains the energy themselves, so it's like healing, so Grass as a whole should deal with attacks that heal your pokemon in some way.
Fire and Lightning should be one type, where fire would deal high damage while discarding energy, while lightning, while the same type as fire type, would find a way to replenish that energy. Just think MTG's Green color. The same color tries to cast large creatures for large amounts of mana, but also has spells that search for lands and stuff. I think lightning should be the one that deals major damage, while fire replenishes energy. In real life, fire grows, while lightning strikes, but that doesn't really matter to me. I guess lightning replenishes energy how electricity energizes your appliances? So it is like the battery, while fire is like the output?
Water is the direct attack color, and can attack bench pokemon. I really don't know the flavor for this though. I guess water pokemon take alternate underwater routes to attack the bench pokemon?
Psychic should deal with status conditions. Poison, yeah, poisons, whlie psychics can paralyze you, make you sleep, or confuse you with their mind tricks.
Fighting should deal with combo attacks. Don't know how gound fits into all this though.
Darkness, which now includes ghost should deal with discarding your opponent's cards. Dark targets physical items, such as stealing them, while ghost targets your mind, such as "Scaring your cards away", or you run away, and stuff falls out of your pocket, I don't know.
Metal deals with high defense, and damage prevention. Steel is hard. Rock is hard. Need I say more?
Then you have the multi energy requirement dragon type, which goes by itself
And then colorless would be Normal, Flying, and Fairy. It all fits together.
But still, combining Fire and Lighting would feel awkward, even if they only have around 3 fire cards or lightning cards per set, and that is pretty dumb that it is that way.
The one problem I currently have with pokemon is that you can use any type of pokemon, and it would not have an outcome to the strategy you have. I'd rather have a reason for the type to exist, such as how Darkness deals with discarding opponent's cards, and a reason to play Darkness is to empty your opponent's hand, rather than playing whatever just because.
I'd rather see each set have close to equal amount of types in the TCG before adding any more types, with colorless having more and dragon having less of course. We don't need any more types that force other types to have the same as fire and lightning, where we only see an average of 5 per set.
But still, even with the recent sets, there are still a lot of fire and lightning cards compared to darkness and metal. I guess it is because we keep on seeing the same pokemon with fire and lighting, compared to grass, or psychic, where we see more different pokemon. Maybe if you can only have 4 of a distinct card rather than a pokemon, that would justify keeping fire and lightning split, because right now, as long as you can only have 4 of the same pokemon of the same name in a deck, no matter if each of your 4 are a different card, it makes it hard to justify keeping fire and lightning separate, because every other type gets 2 or 3 VG types, while Fire and Lightning only gets one.
Flys Gone 2071 said:
Yeah, I was thinking combining fire and lightning, but 7 types that use their own energy just feels wierd, but at least it would be better than 8, or even NINE as some people suggest.
But still, rock to metal. Maybe metal can be the very hard gimmick.
So back to the themes of each type, based on the new way I do it, and the flavor theme.
Grass grows, so it is the healing type.
Bug drains energy, like you know, those pesky mosquitos, but gains the energy themselves, so it's like healing, so Grass as a whole should deal with attacks that heal your pokemon in some way.
Fire and Lightning should be one type, where fire would deal high damage while discarding energy, while lightning, while the same type as fire type, would find a way to replenish that energy. Just think MTG's Green color. The same color tries to cast large creatures for large amounts of mana, but also has spells that search for lands and stuff. I think lightning should be the one that deals major damage, while fire replenishes energy. In real life, fire grows, while lightning strikes, but that doesn't really matter to me. I guess lightning replenishes energy how electricity energizes your appliances? So it is like the battery, while fire is like the output?
Water is the direct attack color, and can attack bench pokemon. I really don't know the flavor for this though. I guess water pokemon take alternate underwater routes to attack the bench pokemon?
Psychic should deal with status conditions. Poison, yeah, poisons, whlie psychics can paralyze you, make you sleep, or confuse you with their mind tricks.
Fighting should deal with combo attacks. Don't know how gound fits into all this though.
Darkness, which now includes ghost should deal with discarding your opponent's cards. Dark targets physical items, such as stealing them, while ghost targets your mind, such as "Scaring your cards away", or you run away, and stuff falls out of your pocket, I don't know.
Metal deals with high defense, and damage prevention. Steel is hard. Rock is hard. Need I say more?
Then you have the multi energy requirement dragon type, which goes by itself
And then colorless would be Normal, Flying, and Fairy. It all fits together.
But still, combining Fire and Lighting would feel awkward, even if they only have around 3 fire cards or lightning cards per set, and that is pretty dumb that it is that way.
The one problem I currently have with pokemon is that you can use any type of pokemon, and it would not have an outcome to the strategy you have. I'd rather have a reason for the type to exist, such as how Darkness deals with discarding opponent's cards, and a reason to play Darkness is to empty your opponent's hand, rather than playing whatever just because.
I'd rather see each set have close to equal amount of types in the TCG before adding any more types, with colorless having more and dragon having less of course. We don't need any more types that force other types to have the same as fire and lightning, where we only see an average of 5 per set.
But still, even with the recent sets, there are still a lot of fire and lightning cards compared to darkness and metal. I guess it is because we keep on seeing the same pokemon with fire and lighting, compared to grass, or psychic, where we see more different pokemon. Maybe if you can only have 4 of a distinct card rather than a pokemon, that would justify keeping fire and lightning split, because right now, as long as you can only have 4 of the same pokemon of the same name in a deck, no matter if each of your 4 are a different card, it makes it hard to justify keeping fire and lightning separate, because every other type gets 2 or 3 VG types, while Fire and Lightning only gets one.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
While I can understand some of these arguments from a gameplay perspective, they make no sense from a Pokémon perspective. Charizard as a lightning type or Pikachu as a fire-type, really? I get you want to keep the game balanced, but throwing the flavour of the game to the wind just because you want game strategy to work in a certain way doesn't make a lick of sense. There is a lot more to the TCG game than balancing type strengths and weaknesses.
While I can understand some of these arguments from a gameplay perspective, they make no sense from a Pokémon perspective. Charizard as a lightning type or Pikachu as a fire-type, really? I get you want to keep the game balanced, but throwing the flavour of the game to the wind just because you want game strategy to work in a certain way doesn't make a lick of sense. There is a lot more to the TCG game than balancing type strengths and weaknesses.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
While I want fire and lightning to stay separate, it isn't like Charizard is Lightning, and Pikachu is Fire. They are both, both. It's like saying it is stupid because Koffing is Psychic.
In the end, they need to find a way to put more representation in Darkness and Metal, because so far, in the recent sets, they have the least representation, and a bit more representation with Fire and Lightning, before they add more types, which would ultimately lower the representation of all other types.
Artemis said:
While I want fire and lightning to stay separate, it isn't like Charizard is Lightning, and Pikachu is Fire. They are both, both. It's like saying it is stupid because Koffing is Psychic.
In the end, they need to find a way to put more representation in Darkness and Metal, because so far, in the recent sets, they have the least representation, and a bit more representation with Fire and Lightning, before they add more types, which would ultimately lower the representation of all other types.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
I dont know about all this type shifting around, but I could see Ghost being moved to Dark, as then all Psychic Pokemon could have Darkness weakness while Poison Pokemon would be able to have Psychic as a weakness. Makes perfect sense to me.
However, I do not see Fairy type being grouped in with Colorless. If anything, due to the balancing nature that the typing is supposed to have, it should be grouped in with Dragon. This way, Dragon types having weakness to themselves would still stay relevant and Fairy would still be super effective against them. As far as weakness' goes, Fairy Pokemon in the Dragon typing should be weak to Metal (since it has 1 representative type) or Psychic (less desirable since 3 types are currently residing there), so as to represent some form of its rumored VG weakness'. Both Metal cards and Dragon cards are not in high abundance ATM so having Fairy weak against and strong against those two types respectively makes for a decent balance.
Some might think- why is FAIRY part of the Dragon type!? Well, just like we got used to Poison shifting over to Psychic, Im sure everyone would get used to it eventually.
I dont know about all this type shifting around, but I could see Ghost being moved to Dark, as then all Psychic Pokemon could have Darkness weakness while Poison Pokemon would be able to have Psychic as a weakness. Makes perfect sense to me.
However, I do not see Fairy type being grouped in with Colorless. If anything, due to the balancing nature that the typing is supposed to have, it should be grouped in with Dragon. This way, Dragon types having weakness to themselves would still stay relevant and Fairy would still be super effective against them. As far as weakness' goes, Fairy Pokemon in the Dragon typing should be weak to Metal (since it has 1 representative type) or Psychic (less desirable since 3 types are currently residing there), so as to represent some form of its rumored VG weakness'. Both Metal cards and Dragon cards are not in high abundance ATM so having Fairy weak against and strong against those two types respectively makes for a decent balance.
Some might think- why is FAIRY part of the Dragon type!? Well, just like we got used to Poison shifting over to Psychic, Im sure everyone would get used to it eventually.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
Fairy will most likely get its own type in the tcg. Dark and Steel both got their own types in the TCG even thought there weren't that many of them for a while. The fact that we got Dragon recently proves that they are still willing to add new types.
Fairy will most likely get its own type in the tcg. Dark and Steel both got their own types in the TCG even thought there weren't that many of them for a while. The fact that we got Dragon recently proves that they are still willing to add new types.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
Yeah, but dragon had the multi energy requirement gimmick. They had this gimmick with ex Dragon back in the end of 2003. Back then, this gimmick was on colorless cards. The gold color now tells players that they need more than one type of energy to use the attacks on that card, same way as how a purple card tells the player that the deck probably needs some psychic energy.
Dark and Steel were also a different story. Just because it worked in the past doesn't mean it will work again today. Back then there were 6 types, so 2 more probably could be squeezed in, and they both represented a gameplay element, such as damage prevention and discarding opponent's cards. I think all of the gameplay elements are grouped into types, so there is no need for any more types.
Unless a new type brings in something new gameplay strategy wise, there won't ever be a new type. You may say this new type has a new weakness to type A, and resistant against type B, but so are every other type. You may say it brings in new pokemon, but I could say that every pokemon sort of does the same thing. The one thing I wished the makers of this game would do is to differentiate the 8 types, and focus on them, and make each one unique. MTG does that, and it would be cool to give each type its own identity. Each type kind of does though. Fire has the most cards were you have to discard energy to pull off a massive attack.
I don't want the game to become something where your deck looks like a box of crayola crayons.
Dark Void said:
Yeah, but dragon had the multi energy requirement gimmick. They had this gimmick with ex Dragon back in the end of 2003. Back then, this gimmick was on colorless cards. The gold color now tells players that they need more than one type of energy to use the attacks on that card, same way as how a purple card tells the player that the deck probably needs some psychic energy.
Dark and Steel were also a different story. Just because it worked in the past doesn't mean it will work again today. Back then there were 6 types, so 2 more probably could be squeezed in, and they both represented a gameplay element, such as damage prevention and discarding opponent's cards. I think all of the gameplay elements are grouped into types, so there is no need for any more types.
Unless a new type brings in something new gameplay strategy wise, there won't ever be a new type. You may say this new type has a new weakness to type A, and resistant against type B, but so are every other type. You may say it brings in new pokemon, but I could say that every pokemon sort of does the same thing. The one thing I wished the makers of this game would do is to differentiate the 8 types, and focus on them, and make each one unique. MTG does that, and it would be cool to give each type its own identity. Each type kind of does though. Fire has the most cards were you have to discard energy to pull off a massive attack.
I don't want the game to become something where your deck looks like a box of crayola crayons.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
What is there to say that Fairy type couldn't have its own focus or gimmick? In fact, it probably will. Give me some time and I could think up some unique things Fairy type could have, and I'm not even a paid employee of the company.
What is there to say that Fairy type couldn't have its own focus or gimmick? In fact, it probably will. Give me some time and I could think up some unique things Fairy type could have, and I'm not even a paid employee of the company.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
no no no, Colorless is so ugly, I want the fact that they are fairies to be significant, new type or bust.
no no no, Colorless is so ugly, I want the fact that they are fairies to be significant, new type or bust.