Discussion Judge Reprint

Professor Willow

Professor Willow

Aspiring Trainer
Member
With the "Judge" card originally being printed in HGSS being reprinted in breaktgrough, how do you feel this will impact the format? Being able to reduce your oppo ents hand to 4 T1 could be devastating to a lot a strategies. Especially since player 1 can empty they're hand, judge, then drop shaymin and refill they're hand and keep going. I loved playing this card in HGSS standard. What ate your thoughts on this cards impact?

Judge ~ supporter
Each player shuffles his or her hand into his or her deck and draws 4 cards.
 
You can look at Judge as a more balanced version of n, which is no longer playable in Standard. It can serve many of the same purposes, such as forcing your opponent to shuffle in when you know they have a Lysandre that can win them the game. Unlike N, it gives both players four cards regardless of the situation, so it isn't as broken when your opponent has 1-2 Prize cards left. That's still better than not being able to ctrol your opponent's hand when you know he or she can win the game next turn! It's also more useful than Ace Trainer, as you're able to play it any time, and you can use it as an emergency hand refresh if it's the only Supporter you have access to, even if you aren't behind on Prizes. That said, I think N is still the better play in Expanded because it can deny your opponent even more late game, but in Standard Judge is going to be a staple in every deck. 1-2 is probably going to be the standard for most decks, with decks like Vileplume running higher counts to have a tighter control on the opponent's hand.
 
idk, judge seems okay, birch and sycamore offer better draw power over judge where as judge just offer's solid distruption, even when judge was in hgss and we had better draw power cards like pont, collector, cleffa, and smeargle, judge never really saw a play above 2, now in a format flooded with vs seeker, it's hard not to see a standard list run 3 sycamore, 3 birch and 1-2 judge. At least standard finally has disruption supporter cards.
 
Well I did enjoy being able to plan for next turn, but I guess that's semi-out of the window now if everyone starts playing this.

I can see myself using Judge in my Seismitina deck, to shuffle all the items from my opponent's hand back into their deck and limit their options somewhat when I change from Seismitoad to Giratina and start hitting with Chaos Wheel.
 
I think Judge is being over hyped. When I saw it was being reprinted I was excited because it was a more balanced version of N. Now being one of the only people who liked N even when I was only getting 1-2 cards(I also love Toad. I know, I'm horrible) I immediately thought I would have at least 2 in every deck. The problem with Judge is that you are putting your hand down to 4, even if your opponent also has 4 cards. If you want disruption that much, I suggest Red Card, which is Judge only for your opponent, but it's an item card so you can still play another supporter.
 
The thing with Judge is that as of the current (future really, but you get the idea) Standard format, it's the best source of hand disruption we have. Of course it doesn't come close to being as powerful as N, but it doesn't have the restriction of Ace Trainer, and unlike Red Card and Mismagius, from BREAKthrough can also be used to refresh your own hand if you need that, not to mention that it's a Supporter so you have access to it when you're Item locked. If I know my opponent has a Lysandre in hand, with which he or she could win the game next turn I'd rather pop a Judge to give myself a chance at staying alive than knowing I'll lose. Unless N receives a reprint, or another card is printed with the exact same effect, both of which I doubt, Judge is the most viable option for this role. Even in the current Expanded world, not many decks run high counts of N, since there are better draw cards, but like N, Judge will see play for its disruption potential.
 
Last edited:
I mean with Vs Seeker commonly being a 4 of I can see this card easily being a 1-of. I mean it's been brought up multiple times, N isn't in standard. This is the best option available. Hype or not it'll see some play and whether it's kept or not will come from results.
 
I don't see why people say that judge is more balanced then N is, because it's not. N is more balanced, the fact that you actually have slight control over what you mitigate in and out of your deck gives you more balance in disruption versus deck maintenance (reduced deck thinning). Where as judge is legitimately a 4 for 4 card, no control, no mitigation.

But why choose to give you opponent hand support versus you hand support, do you have any idea how many times my opponent red carded me into a good hand? Answer, every time because you don't know how terrible my hand was before you red carded it, and they got nothing to benefit from it. And this is why playing judge is better then playing red card.
 
Yo-yos said:
I don't see why people say that judge is more balanced then N is, because it's not. N is more balanced, the fact that you actually have slight control over what you mitigate in and out of your deck gives you more balance in disruption versus deck maintenance (reduced deck thinning). Where as judge is legitimately a 4 for 4 card, no control, no mitigation.
Click to expand...

The fact that N is so much more powerful than Judge is exactly why others are saying that Judge is a more balanced N. Many have argued that N was broken, and so a worse version of N would be more balanced in that it is healthier for the game. Playing N on your opponent, bringing their hand size down to one, and watching them lose the game from there can be seen as a problem, whereas Judge only provides a way for you to influence your opponent's hand so that you can make them shuffle the win back into their deck and not a way to make your opponent dead draw. I think that you and MLK are basically saying the same thing: N > Judge.
 
I've heard of lots of people making the statement of being N'd to 1 and they lose, TBH this hasn't happened to me since the 2013 season. Being N'd to 1 happens a lot, my draw consistency on a vs seeker or sycamore on that N to 1 is somewhere around 80-90%, even the turn after I draw, so no, N to 1 isn't as terrible as people thinks that it is, if it's a problem, work out your draw ratio's, put more sycamore and birch in, play and ultra ball all the N out of your deck early game, AZ is an option too, but even if you do this your N to 1 ratio is not guaranteed a sycamore, it's increased versus play of sycamore. This is why expanded decks play something like 4 sycamore 2 N so the late game N doesn't hit them that hard.

But judge gives them more options to play, you already wasted a supporter turn for 4 cards in hand, you draw energy (already attached one this turn), birch, sacred ash, and a pokemon you either can't bench or don't feel like benching because it's not the right one. Thier hand, the fact that they get to attache an energy, top deck a vs seeker for a sycamore or play the birch just put's them in a better position, why is N better, because you have the chance of getting lysandre out of their hand and forcing them to use a supporter to get out of a next to nothing kind of hand, why is judge good for standard, because it stops decks from getting 12 card hands, the chances of that lysandre late game is in a 5 card hand they get late game versus a 1 card hand meaning that 1 of those cards is a vs seeker for game.

I don't see MLK agreeing with me on this, MLK just think it offer's more disruption then it does, were as it doesn't
 
Yo-yos said:
if it's a problem, work out your draw ratio's, put more sycamore and birch in...

This is why expanded decks play something like 4 sycamore 2 N so the late game N doesn't hit them that hard.
Click to expand...

Here, you seem to suggest that people who are N'd down to one and lose the game lost because they were not playing (enough) Sycamore in their deck, which is silly if we are talking competitively. Obviously you can't go up from 4 Sycamore.

Yo-yos said:
my draw consistency on a vs seeker or sycamore on that N to 1 is somewhere around 80-90%, even the turn after I draw, so no, N to 1 isn't as terrible as people thinks that it is
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of this point, as it implies that when you are N'd and shuffle your hand into your deck, if your deck has 10 cards, you'd have at minimum five and at maximum seven in any combination of Juniper and VS Seeker left. And it doesn't seem likely at all that you would be able to get down to 10 cards left in deck while only seeing just one Juniper as this scenario might imply.

I won a game at last week's League Challenge because I N'd a player down to 2, and they didn't get what they needed off the N. A lot of times, even if your opponent doesn't dead draw, it greatly reduces that chance that they can win the game that turn, especially if they need to hit a Lysandre, since if they draw into it with another Supporter, they can't play it that turn.

Yo-yos said:
But judge gives them more options to play, you already wasted a supporter turn for 4 cards in hand, you draw energy (already attached one this turn), birch, sacred ash, and a pokemon you either can't bench or don't feel like benching because it's not the right one. Thier hand, the fact that they get to attache an energy, top deck a vs seeker for a sycamore or play the birch just put's them in a better position,
Click to expand...

But this literally is not a fact. It is just one of many outcomes. I can just as easily say that Judge is the best Supporter because you draw Ultra Ball and Shaymin, and your opponent draws Sacred Ash, Sacred Ash, Sacred Ash, and Sacred Ash. Also, whether or not Judge gives your opponent more options is really arbitrary. We probably won't always know how good or bad our opponent's hand is, but we might have indicators of whether or not they have game in their hand. Maybe they played Trainers' Mail and got a VS Seeker. Maybe they have 8 cards in their hand

I agree that Judge is not as likely to make your opponent dead draw, as I even said in my previous post, but it does offer a way to control your opponents hand that can be retrieved with VS Seeker whenever the need for it arises. I'm not saying it's broken, but I do believe that it does have some niche role.
 
one thing to consider is what decks used more then 1-2 judge back when it was first printed, the answer only really yanmega prime, cause it could attack for free for 70 which was still a 2 hit ko most of the time. today we have Glalie ex (150 dam), tornadus (120 dam) and maybe one other I can't recall, they both cost 3 energy but can use DCE and the damage is enough for the Glalie at least to 1 hit everything but an ex (and some ex with muscle band).

with judge, vs seeker and battle reporter you can reliable use the stronger version of those attacks 12 times in a battle, which is pretty consistent.

while judge will see some use in other decks glalie ex/tornadus is were it will likely shine.
 
I have to be careful how I say this, because if I don't I'm going to sound needlessly hostile (I'm not) or condescending (for which I have no justification).

Yo-yos said:
I've heard of lots of people making the statement of being N'd to 1 and they lose, TBH this hasn't happened to me since the 2013 season.
Click to expand...

It is good to share your personal experience with something, but remember the popular shorthand "YMMV": Your Mileage May Vary.

It may not have happened to you in a while... that doesn't mean everyone else who has had it happen during that time, it was only because of misplays or an improperly built deck. If you really want to put such a claim forward as fact, that is going to require proof... and that proof is mathematical, not anecdotal. Even just presenting it as your experience requires may not be worthwhile because how do you (let alone we) know that you just haven't had an exceptional lucky streak with regards to this specific issue with N?

You can't. Based on my own understanding of the game, that is the only explanation I can give; even with your skill, bad draws happen, leaving you with nothing you can do. Which brings us to the idea that the only problem with N is that you might have an opponent knock you down to a single card hand and between that and your next draw, you can't keep your deck going/restart it.

A few days ago I lost because on the first turn of the game, my opponent used N. While I had one of my attackers in play, I then drew six cards that were important to the deck but that I could not use under those circumstances, with none of them being a draw supporter or search card for me to try for a Shaymin-EX (ROS). I then drew similarly dead the next turn, and on my opponent's next turn he or she was able to take the win by KOing my opening Pokémon (my only Pokémon in play). Before my opponent played N on the his or her* opening turn I had draw and search cards in hand so that I could at least avoid losing.

There are also the games where I had the cards I needed to win the next turn but my opponent used N to shuffle my hand away. I may not have drawn dead, but I didn't get the needed card(s) back and so could not take the win at that point. Sometimes when that happens I lose the game. Thanks to opponent's telegraphing plays (including times when they had no real choice) I know I have done the same to others; forced them to shuffle away the Lysandre I know they just got out of the Prizes and could use to win the game next turn, use my own N and they don't Lysandre for the win next turn. The thing is... even though I may have had access to a Professor Juniper or VS Seeker that turn, N still determined the outcome of the game.

So you've got a really narrow set of parameters and I think you're missing that these kinds of things do not have to happen with high frequency to still be "too often". Once is one time too many. Prize counts are often misleading, at least until you actually win the game. N is designed to punish a player for pulling ahead in Prizes. It can't tell whether the player pulled ahead in Prizes through skill or through luck; it punishes both regardless. Why is that a good thing? It makes far more sense to try and balance out the game so that large Prize leads only occur when a player has earned it than to create a mechanism that punishes someone for pulling ahead "just in case" it was due to luck (or questionable game design).

*PTCGO game, so all I've got is a non-binding avatar and screen name
 
@Otaku

I agree with this post. My biggest issue with the Pokemon TCG how easy it is to lose when its not your fault. One thing I want to see is some kind of skill return to the game. The game needs to use other way of disruption that doesn't punish game state or player hands. If they need to do this, then the effects shouldn't be free. The problem with Pokemon is almost no game changing effect has a cost, you just play it and that's it.

I know I have done this to other people as well and it suck but I want to see cards that can do this better. Perhaps something more like Paint Roller, when it has a specific purpose and rewards the play a single card draw. I don't know, I just feel hand disruption is too easy. Its kind of like how scary movies think the only way to make a movie is to make it all jump scares. Thats what the Pokemon TCG is like, nothing but jump scares.
 
@crystal_pidgeot, I completely agree with you, what i would absolutely love to see return is a card like power slray from DP series with GL pokemon, the ability to play acard on your opponents to to cancel a poke-power made players actually think as it could be played on opponents turns. Something like that that cancels an ability and can be used on your opponents turn would be awesome to have again. It would at least give players a second to think if they want to dump they're while hand to then drop a shaymin ABC do it all again.
 
Professor Willow said:
@crystal_pidgeot, I completely agree with you, what i would absolutely love to see return is a card like power slray from DP series with GL pokemon, the ability to play acard on your opponents to to cancel a poke-power made players actually think as it could be played on opponents turns. Something like that that cancels an ability and can be used on your opponents turn would be awesome to have again. It would at least give players a second to think if they want to dump they're while hand to then drop a shaymin ABC do it all again.
Click to expand...

Yes but it likely opens up a whole new can of worms.

Maybe I'm being needlessly cautious, but these kind of "counter-cards" counter everything, not just what we might call the problem cards. Maybe I just prefer my own silly solution; inspired by the old (and not very useful) card Imposter Professor Oak (yes, that is how it was spelled), my thought was a Supporter that would force your opponent to discard their hand and draw X cards. I'm not sure what number X should be... but while I was hoping for such a card now it would probably be a bad idea because we have the whole Battle Compressor/VS Seeker/Shaymin-EX (ROS) trick: it would probably just become another tactic that ended far more abusively potent than anticipated.

The best thing would probably be if the next set block toned things down, got back to fundamentals but with a massive bump in HP scores but a significant drop in damage output: while difficult find the balance between the two so that the cards could be at least somewhat competitive against the current crop, but eventually we'll be down to a new "base level" of power from which the game could build back up.

Pretty off topic of me, I know.
 
Otaku said:
I have to be careful how I say this, because if I don't I'm going to sound needlessly hostile (I'm not) or condescending (for which I have no justification).



It is good to share your personal experience with something, but remember the popular shorthand "YMMV": Your Mileage May Vary.

It may not have happened to you in a while... that doesn't mean everyone else who has had it happen during that time, it was only because of misplays or an improperly built deck. If you really want to put such a claim forward as fact, that is going to require proof... and that proof is mathematical, not anecdotal. Even just presenting it as your experience requires may not be worthwhile because how do you (let alone we) know that you just haven't had an exceptional lucky streak with regards to this specific issue with N?

You can't. Based on my own understanding of the game, that is the only explanation I can give; even with your skill, bad draws happen, leaving you with nothing you can do. Which brings us to the idea that the only problem with N is that you might have an opponent knock you down to a single card hand and between that and your next draw, you can't keep your deck going/restart it.

A few days ago I lost because on the first turn of the game, my opponent used N. While I had one of my attackers in play, I then drew six cards that were important to the deck but that I could not use under those circumstances, with none of them being a draw supporter or search card for me to try for a Shaymin-EX (ROS). I then drew similarly dead the next turn, and on my opponent's next turn he or she was able to take the win by KOing my opening Pokémon (my only Pokémon in play). Before my opponent played N on the his or her* opening turn I had draw and search cards in hand so that I could at least avoid losing.

There are also the games where I had the cards I needed to win the next turn but my opponent used N to shuffle my hand away. I may not have drawn dead, but I didn't get the needed card(s) back and so could not take the win at that point. Sometimes when that happens I lose the game. Thanks to opponent's telegraphing plays (including times when they had no real choice) I know I have done the same to others; forced them to shuffle away the Lysandre I know they just got out of the Prizes and could use to win the game next turn, use my own N and they don't Lysandre for the win next turn. The thing is... even though I may have had access to a Professor Juniper or VS Seeker that turn, N still determined the outcome of the game.

So you've got a really narrow set of parameters and I think you're missing that these kinds of things do not have to happen with high frequency to still be "too often". Once is one time too many. Prize counts are often misleading, at least until you actually win the game. N is designed to punish a player for pulling ahead in Prizes. It can't tell whether the player pulled ahead in Prizes through skill or through luck; it punishes both regardless. Why is that a good thing? It makes far more sense to try and balance out the game so that large Prize leads only occur when a player has earned it than to create a mechanism that punishes someone for pulling ahead "just in case" it was due to luck (or questionable game design).

*PTCGO game, so all I've got is a non-binding avatar and screen name
Click to expand...

That is why I posted a variable to how you want to thin your deck of reshuffle supporter's early game and leave large hand supporters for late game so your more then likely to draw into a sycamore every 3rd card late game, it's just a variable of deck thinning and is a 100% viable strategy, it's not about ensuring that your less likely of a dead draw, its to increase probability of having specific cards late game in deck that puts you into less painful situations and this is just prioritizing cards throughout the game, a strategy no different then deck thinning, think of it more as deck thinning with strategy. The result's are not 100% but the strategy is. I've noticed players use this stratgey to win tournaments.
 
Yo-yos said:
That is why I posted a variable to how you want to thin your deck of reshuffle supporter's early game and leave large hand supporters for late game so your more then likely to draw into a sycamore every 3rd card late game, it's just a variable of deck thinning and is a 100% viable strategy, it's not about ensuring that your less likely of a dead draw, its to increase probability of having specific cards late game in deck that puts you into less painful situations and this is just prioritizing cards throughout the game, a strategy no different then deck thinning, think of it more as deck thinning with strategy. The result's are not 100% but the strategy is. I've noticed players use this stratgey to win tournaments.
Click to expand...

Yes, you did mention this: I thank you for including it for those who are novices but people who do that are still having these issues with N. Yes, the best players have the least issues... and so they should.

I included an example of how I lost not due to N taking my hand down to a single card late game, but how an opening N gave me a dead six card hand. Even though the deck I was running was built to thin itself as you describe, my fate was decided before I even had a turn. The only way to avoid it was for my opponent to make a misplay like using N again. I had no way of knowing it until after the fact.

Thinning your deck as you state is a skill, but it also involves luck. Right now deck thinning is where the real "rock-paper-scissors" of the game takes place.

You have to guess at what approach your opponent will take and thin accordingly. Take a "wait and see" approach and you probably suffer from the N scenario. The same goes for if you toss draw power because "My deck is down to less than seven cards; I don't really think I'll need that Professor Sycamore". If you toss TecH (or similar measures) too soon, it can turn out you actually did need them. Your opponent opens with Seismitoad-EX but you haven't seen anything else to tell you if that is the lone Seismitoad-EX in a Darkrai-EX/Yveltal-EX deck or if it is one of several in a Toadbats deck. Relevance? Knowing whether you should burn as many (including tossing them with various card effects) your Items or hold onto them for later.
 
Otaku said:
Yes but it likely opens up a whole new can of worms.

Maybe I'm being needlessly cautious, but these kind of "counter-cards" counter everything, not just what we might call the problem cards. Maybe I just prefer my own silly solution; inspired by the old (and not very useful) card Imposter Professor Oak (yes, that is how it was spelled), my thought was a Supporter that would force your opponent to discard their hand and draw X cards. I'm not sure what number X should be... but while I was hoping for such a card now it would probably be a bad idea because we have the whole Battle Compressor/VS Seeker/Shaymin-EX (ROS) trick: it would probably just become another tactic that ended far more abusively potent than anticipated.

The best thing would probably be if the next set block toned things down, got back to fundamentals but with a massive bump in HP scores but a significant drop in damage output: while difficult find the balance between the two so that the cards could be at least somewhat competitive against the current crop, but eventually we'll be down to a new "base level" of power from which the game could build back up.

Pretty off topic of me, I know.
Click to expand...

I think cards that force your opponent to discard their hand should be avoided like the plague. This doesn't really do anything but make the game more aggressive and massively restrict creative deck building. I have always though the hand should be a safe zone for the player so they can gold onto plays. The way the game is now, you can't save any good plays because you have to worry about getting hit with a judge, N or this card that discards your entire hand. I like building very technical decks with a lot of one-of cards where every card has a purpose. The way the game is now, I can't build decks like this because my hand is changed so often, pretty much taking away one of my favorite play styles.

I don't mind card combos like what you said with Battle Compressor because not all decks can use them but those that can benefit from it. It adds some kind of skill but I do agree the card interaction is a little too wide. What I really mean by have more counter cards is to have more cards that prevent things. For example, a card that makes your Pokemon immune to the effects of your opponents card effects. It keeps your Pokemon safe from catch like effects without having to rely on hand disruption. While I think hand disruption is an important part of the game, I feel its too "free". If these effects came at a cost and that cost is one that wouldn't be beneficial to decks (something like that player can't attack, is forced to met do "X", something other than discard), then I can see them being around. The reason I say this is because hand disruption messes with the opponents game and there isn't any defense to prevent and you're at the mercy of RNG or shuffling methods.
 
@crystal_pidgeot

I've gone back and forth over things like hand disruption and "tool box" style effects and the main thing I believe it boils down to is:

Are both players still able to have fun without being significantly better human beings than most?

If the game becomes one-sided in short order because even when we adjust for things like skill and luck, one deck just doesn't leave the opposition enough options, it is a problem. If there are so many variables outside of my control that I can't take credit for my victories or my losses, I also don't find myself enjoying the game as much, if at all. Why have a "TCG" when we could just have Pokémon themed coins to flip for who wins or similarly themed dice to roll off? Not with effects or rules on them: just a standard heads/tails coin or six-sided (well, all the same amount of sides) die. At that point all the skill becomes "external elements" and the RNG is blatant. Or if we still want a variety of cards with Pokémon on them... just create Pokémon themed trading cards. We'll just play a game of War and shock of shocks, Legendary Pokémon only show up on "face" cards. ;)

Kind of veering far off topic here, but this is what goes through my head as I see "Oh, something else that reduces dependence on long time skills like proper hand cultivation, without an appropriate cost to my opponent for using it."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top