Gimmick win conditions

DNA

Goodbye, everyone. I'll miss you all.
Advanced Member
Member
Not sure if this counts as the right forum for this topic. If it isn't, feel free to move it.

~~~~~

All right, we all know how to win a game, right? We either take all 6 prizes or try and clear the opponent's field, or if possible deck the opponent. Most decks try to go for the first one, and don't usually try for the second unless they're lucky and/or run a few Seeker.

But I'm here to talk about the gimmick win decks that have entered TCG in our recent future: Lostgar and Durant.

I'll give a quick run-down of both.

I'll mention Durant first, since it's a deck that's more recent history and people are more familiar with. As most of you are aware, Durant is pretty much entirely a mill deck - try to keep 4 Durant on the field at all times, using cards like Revive and Dual Ball etc to keep them in play, and Crushing Hammer/Lost Remover and Pokemon Catcher for disruption. For a single {M} Energy, Durant summons his friends, and each one will Devour 1 card from your deck with each attack. With 4 Durant having their fill each time, it adds up, and optimally, a Durant can, optimally, mill a deck out in 9 turns. This means you need to kill those ants FAST or have a way to stop them appearing.

Now for Lostgar. People who joined TCG more recently probably don't know what that is, so here's how it works. You use Gengar Prime's Hurl into Darkness effect to check your opponent's hand, and for each {P} Energy on Gengar, you can choose 1 Pokemon there and remove it from play (send to the Lost Zone) - once there, they never return. Or, if you want, you can use Cursed Drop to put 4 damage counters a turn on your opponent's field - with the intent that, if Gengar is Active upon a knockout, that knocked-out Pokemon is removed from play, plus all its evolution stages. (This, ironically, gives Gengar a favorable matchup against Durant. Think about it.) After that, once you have removed from play 6 of your opponent's Pokemon, you can use the Stadium card Lost World and say "I win". No prizes, no clearing the field - just get rid of 6 and play the Stadium.

Clearly, both of those decks do not win through standard means.

So I ask you as players...what do you think of these decks? Do you think it's right to win via these gimmick win conditions? Or are they something to be looked down upon and you should just go for the 6-prizes route? And if you like the gimmicks, which ones do you like? (I've met people who love Durant and hate Gengar, and who hate Durant and love Gengar, in terms of win conditions. I personally like both; I have run Gengar myself but I've yet to use Durant.)

Discuss!
 
Gimmick win conditions are great. They supply a fresh alternative to winning a game, and they diverse the format, which is a good thing.

Cities was such an amazing format with tons of different decks and strategies. CoKE fell behind to mass spread and hit with decent damage, Thunderdome used powerful basics early game and the unlimited damage of Magnezone later on, Durant milled, Chandeplume locked and spread... the list goes on.

Durant is my favorite deck to play, and Mewgar was amazing too. Your opponent can be caught off guard and has to deal with your gameplan, and it makes fun and interesting games.

And for the people who dislike alternate ways to play, keep in mind it doesn't "ruin" the format. Durant has won like what, 2-4 States? Lostgar was also not really much of a problem. The main reason Durant won a good amount of Cities was the fact that few people knew how to handle the matchup.
 
You better believe those are legit ways to win

Durant is seriously my favorite deck of all time. I'm one of those guys who built a deck around Wildfire Moltres in the GBC game and trolled all the clubs with it, just because decking Murray out is one of the most satisfying moments in video game history.

Durant is also special because it can actually win. It's a gimmick that works and the fact that it has won any premier tournament at all is proof of this.

I would love to see more unconventional win methods in the future.
 
It's actually 9 turns max to deck an opponent because drawing at the start of the turn is not optional. That's assuming they're not putting more cards back in their deck, etc.

I love Durant. It's definitely on my list of favorite decks (as explained in that favorite deck thread) and for good reason. I find the playstyle fun and almost every matchup becomes very nuanced and intricate in what you need to do. I do like Lostgar to an extent, but just the fact that it has really never been playable and is absolutely horrible right now when you consider the main Pokemon are all Basics and it needs to win in a Best 2/3 format has always turned me off of the deck. It was vastly better before with Uxie but now you can't draw and Seeker in the same turn. It's a shame that the Lost World mechanic was so under utilized.

dmaster out.
 
Spidy said:
THIS is a gimmick
Get some Porygon 2 GE and play traditional then. :D

I can assume that most of us are in favor of "gimmick" wins. Mill has been around in YGO as far as I know, so it's nice to see that PTCG now has that same playstyle added to its history.
 
Spidy said:
those arnt gimmick wins

THIS is a gimmick

*tear comes to eye*
sniff
i miss that deck
omg that deck <3

It's actually 9 turns max to deck an opponent because drawing at the start of the turn is not optional. That's assuming they're not putting more cards back in their deck, etc.
That's why I said 10, because they could always put cards back in the deck, and they most likely will. I actually try to play smart against Durant so they don't dent me so much, i.e. only playing what I need.

I'm glad to see that most of you guys like gimmick win conditions. I'm actually considering running Durant at Battle Roads in May just to give it a whirl and see how well I can do with it. (Yes, I know about Heatmor. I'm going to plan for that.)

I always love seeing fun ways to win, and I am happy to see you guys do too.
 
Yeah, you never want to waste cards against Durant, especially in the mirror. I've seen many people at States and in tourney reports attach Eviolites and extra Energy and wasting Junk Arms, and that means less cards in the deck whenever using PONT or N.

If you are gonna use Durant at Battle Roads, have fun battling the plethora of Dark decks that have free retreat on everything, 100+ Damage by T2, and Energy acceleration through Patch... not gonna be fun. Oh, and everything else will tech in a Heatmor if they expect Durant.
 
EliGagerNorris said:
Yeah, you never want to waste cards against Durant, especially in the mirror. I've seen many people at States and in tourney reports attach Eviolites and extra Energy and wasting Junk Arms, and that means less cards in the deck whenever using PONT or N.

If you are gonna use Durant at Battle Roads, have fun battling the plethora of Dark decks that have free retreat on everything, 100+ Damage by T2, and Energy acceleration through Patch... not gonna be fun. Oh, and everything else will tech in a Heatmor if they expect Durant.
lost remover will work wonders though
and everything else wont run heatmor
there plenty of decks like zekeels that dont need it
 
Gimmick decks are so fun to play (with), but against you get so frustrated, and when you win with either, you feel so good.
Durant
Lostgar
My gimmick decks <3
 
Durant, as mush as it has done for me, is beginning to tick me off...... For example, most of the deck is luck. I love Durant, it did get me 2nd at a Cities, but its luck basedness (lol) is just......dumb. Anybody can play durant well, good or bad. All they have to know is how to play it. Everything else is common sense- catcher up this, crushing hammer that, N there. Only so many people can play ZekEels well, but if it (or any other deck) is unlucky against Durant, its over. Durant counts on your opponent to discard the wrong things, set up slowly and get their helpful cards milled. LostGar, on the other hand, was only legit for so long. Until it came into focus, it kinda stinks. Mewgar took its place, as a better and quicker deck.

On the other hand, I make many "gimmick decks", but just for fun. Durant is more of a last minute deck, as I used it because it was fun, easy to make, and a last resort. A guy at Regionals played Durant only because he forgot his LandoTerrakion at home and he placed 2nd. Last minute hmmmmm.....
 
I honestly dislike gimmick win conditions. We're playing a different game when playing against Durant or Lostgar compared to normal decks. Anyone who plays magic knows the feeling of going up against a combo deck that auto-wins when it gets its combo. You're playing a different game than the normal one, and it just isn't much fun. Decks can have strategy that bring it out of the normal game (like MewTric from back in the day), but decks that have goals of not playing the normal 6-KO-to-win game aren't fun (VVV, Durant, LostGar). They are legitimate and I don't fault anyone from using them, but I honestly don't agree with printing win conditions that involve playing a different game than the one we expect to be playing at tournaments. The goal of decks should be to take 6 prizes or to bench the opponent. VVV wants to para-lock the opponent and win, Durant wants to mill, and LostGar wants to LZ. I had the same problem with Pidgey FRLG and Spinarak HGSS, but I don't fault anyone for using them. They are legitimate methods of victory, so why not play them? I just disagree with ever printing them...
 
How is it a different game? You're still winning, which is generally the name of the game at tournaments anyway.

Also, I don't know for sure, but doesn't VVV try to take prizes?
 
Yeah, VVV takes prizes, it's just a gimmik because when 1 takes damage from a Vaniluxe it's kind dead.
 
DecaDang said:
How is it a different game? You're still winning, which is generally the name of the game at tournaments anyway.

Also, I don't know for sure, but doesn't VVV try to take prizes?
Obviously we are playing the same game of Pokemon, but the Pokemon card game is based on interactions of active pokemon bouncing attacks off of each other (or bench) and the strongest pokemon coming out on top. I'll play the best deck in the format... if that involves playing gimmicks, I'll do it... happily. Even so, one player's goals are highly different from the other player's goals. As a result, one player is playing a different game from the other. When I play against durant, I rush to KO a durant each turn while the durant player's goal is to hinder me as much as possible and take prizes when possible. See the inherent difference?

VVV does take prizes, but its goal is to lock the opponent up. If it can get the lock and has enough time, mission accomplished! The game is over. Your opponent may as well scoop there.
 
Spidy said:
those arnt gimmick wins

THIS is a gimmick

*tear comes to eye*
sniff
i miss that deck

That deck was probably the most legit deck of all time. Just saying.

Anyways, I think gimmicks are good to have. whether you like them or not, they will always exist, and you can't just discriminate against a legit way to win saying "i like durant but hate gengar because aosifjsdofsd." Whether you like them or not they will still be present and you have to prepare for them. So I see no reason to hate them. It will just make you hate going to tournaments and playing against them.
 
Zero said:
VVV does take prizes, but its goal is to lock the opponent up. If it can get the lock and has enough time, mission accomplished! The game is over. Your opponent may as well scoop there.

Going by that logic, Vileplume/Reuniclus variants fall into the same category. Are you saying that deck is a gimmick too?
 
sillykyle said:
Going by that logic, Vileplume/Reuniclus variants fall into the same category. Are you saying that deck is a gimmick too?

Vileplume Reuniclus is mildly different. It still takes 6 prizes and it doesn't have a "If I do this, I'll win" plan. It sets up its Plume and Reuniclus, but then it still has to take 6 prizes while taking on-coming attacks from the opponent. Like most good decks, it has a game plan, and it was a method to winning. What Reuniplum does is it sets your opponent into a game of OHKOing whatever active you pick within a reasonable amount of time. The difference between truth and a normal gimmick is that Truth doesn't auto-win when it gets its combo (it never did). It is more likely to win when it gets its combo, but it doesn't auto-win (or near auto-win). It gets its combo, has an advantage because of that combo, and continues playing the game from there.
 
Zero said:
They are legitimate and I don't fault anyone from using them, but I honestly don't agree with printing win conditions that involve playing a different game than the one we expect to be playing at tournaments.
...You mad? I can't help but feel some sort of aversion to what you feel is "the proper way to win" when a wildcard deck with an alternate win condition comes your way. (It's also highly coincidental you mentioned those 3 particular decks - at one point or another, I have played all 3 of them.)

Would you feel the same way when fighting against a Final Countdown Deck in YGO? (I would mention Exodia, but Exodia decks nowadays are commonly OTK/FTK, which are usually seen as rather unfair tactics to begin with. Neither Final Countdown nor VVV/Durant/Lostgar are OTK decks.) And what about LuxChomp? Many people regarded it as cheap because it took prizes way too quickly, but it still won via the normal ways. What's your take on it?

Just because a deck has an alternate way to win does not necessarily make it better or worse than any other given deck; they all have their problems. LostGar has a hard time to begin with due to Junk Arm discarding Pokemon for card fuel (leaving Mime Jr+Slowking the only real way it can survive, and even that is fragile); Durant can be played around by playing smart and only what is needed; VVV is a bit clunky to set up and more often than not any window your opponent gets to attack will slow you down greatly.

I'm not trying to flame you or anything, Zero. It's just that you're the only person who has really spoken against gimmick wins so far and I'd like to hear more of your take on the matter. (It had to happen eventually; I'm just glad you were the one to disagree.)
 
Back
Top