Nine Surprising Changes Announced for the PTCG: Fairy Pokemon Dropped!
- Thread starter Water Pokémon Master
- Start date
N's Rhyperior
Aspiring Trainer
So the first Alcremie we will ever get will be a Psychic Type. Next Xerneas will be a P type
The Fairy Purge doesn't make much sense, with Psychic being a rather unfitting match. It's not like Types in Pokemon are like Colors in Magic, with their own set identities and a very rigid Color Wheel - more often than not, Pokemon Types are allowed to do whatever they want. They could literally add every Pokemon Type into the card game and it wouldn't have a huge effect - maybe splashing would be a bit harder, but that's it.
Weakness is fine, as long as decks aren't pigeonholed into one attacker with one weakness. What I want to see is more diversity in weaknesses - there are Pokemon that are NOT weak to a certain type in the games, yet they're still weak in the TCG. Even when playing just one Type, a deck should have a spread of weaknesses and resistances to increase complexity.
Kind of an odd and sudden change to remove Fairy type Pokémon cards completely.
Seems like something you would announce before the release of a new generation of cards (which *technically* they are for the worldwide releases?) despite Japanese SWSH card game packaging showing the Fairy type energy.
Seems like something you would announce before the release of a new generation of cards (which *technically* they are for the worldwide releases?) despite Japanese SWSH card game packaging showing the Fairy type energy.
Weakness really needs to be 2x for the moment, though, because how else will non-GX/EX/V Pokémon compete with the power creep? 2x is why Buzzwole (non-gx) was an effective deck back in the Zoroark era, or why non-gx Malamar decks can hold their own against MewMewTwo. Without it, it's too hard for the one-prizers to keep up, especially with GX Pokémon that can knock out a bunch of 1 prizers (or ADP with its GX move).
I'd be all for changing Weakness if we reduced the power creep significantly, or started having more interesting ways to knock out Pokémon, such that pure HP wasn't an issue anymore; but that's a ways away I feel.
I'd be all for changing Weakness if we reduced the power creep significantly, or started having more interesting ways to knock out Pokémon, such that pure HP wasn't an issue anymore; but that's a ways away I feel.
So I'm surprised that fairy cards will be abolished in the future and the Fairy-Pokémon come to the Psycho type group.
So to overview and assemble different Pokémon types:
Card-Type - Pokémon-Type
Grass => Grass, Bug
Water => Ice, Water
Fire => Fire
Lightning => Lightning
Dark => Dark, Poison
Fighting => Fighting, Ground, Rock
Psychic => Psychic, Ghost, Fairy
Dragon => Dragon
Steel => Steel
Colorless => Normal, Flying
Two Pokémon-types were moved to another types of cards.
What are the weakness and restistance of the Fairy-Pokémon in psychic-type cards? It is not known for me.
So to overview and assemble different Pokémon types:
Card-Type - Pokémon-Type
Grass => Grass, Bug
Water => Ice, Water
Fire => Fire
Lightning => Lightning
Dark => Dark, Poison
Fighting => Fighting, Ground, Rock
Psychic => Psychic, Ghost, Fairy
Dragon => Dragon
Steel => Steel
Colorless => Normal, Flying
Two Pokémon-types were moved to another types of cards.
What are the weakness and restistance of the Fairy-Pokémon in psychic-type cards? It is not known for me.
Because of the two type energy costs, Dragon types should always and forever be weak against dragon. The TCG should never again make a Dragon type card that is weak against anything else but Dragon.
There is a way to include every video game type in the TCG. Who said that the number of types of Pokemon in the TCG must equal the number of Energy types?
You can have a dedicated Fairy Type, and it uses Psychic Energy, now renamed Purple Energy.
I never really liked the idea that they introduced the Fairy Type when the XY sets were released. They did it just because in the Video Games, Fairy was a new type, and it would look lame if they lumped Fairy into an existing type, rather than make it its own type, although they should have lumped it in with an existing type in the first place. Now they are just fixing what should have been done a long time ago.
Now if they had done my idea, the TCG could have as many types of Pokemon as there are the number of crayola crayons. The Energy types must stay at a minimum.
There is a way to include every video game type in the TCG. Who said that the number of types of Pokemon in the TCG must equal the number of Energy types?
You can have a dedicated Fairy Type, and it uses Psychic Energy, now renamed Purple Energy.
I never really liked the idea that they introduced the Fairy Type when the XY sets were released. They did it just because in the Video Games, Fairy was a new type, and it would look lame if they lumped Fairy into an existing type, rather than make it its own type, although they should have lumped it in with an existing type in the first place. Now they are just fixing what should have been done a long time ago.
Now if they had done my idea, the TCG could have as many types of Pokemon as there are the number of crayola crayons. The Energy types must stay at a minimum.
I agree with all your points except for #2. It's too early to judge whether or not this rule change was a poor decision. I don't believe that the change was made as an errata of sorts for supporters (i.e. Welder), as it's too universal of a modification to simply be for a few cards. TPCi is sometimes delusional when it comes to game combos, but they wouldn't make" no supporter T1" a thing if their goal was to see powerful Supporters get played less. I personally think that they're going to use this rule and divert from the orthodox expectations we have for Supporters. There may be cards that benefit a player by going second. Finally, you would have to figure that decks like ABzard and Mew3 instantly take a hit by losing T1 Welder (as T2 300 is a turn later for Mewtwo, as your opponent gets another turn to respond). Your point could very well end up being how the community feels, but it still seems like we should give the game some breathing room before jumping to conclusions in this instance.Might as well address all the changes, even those we've long since known were coming:
- Expanded is a problem: Yeah, nothing was said about it but a lot of these things are issues because of Expanded and poor planning for it. Maybe it needs to rotate, or maybe they need to plan ahead better because of issues that are their own doing.
- No T1 Supporter is a bad idea. Instead of issuing an errata for the Supporters that are too good T1, they're taking away an important first-turn play. Like how, instead of balancing out attacks, the rules of Evolution, etc. we lost T1 attacks and it still didn't balance going first versus going second.
- Offense tends to be stronger than defense; combine that with general power creep and restoring Resistance to -30 damage makes sense. Leaving Weakness at x2 does not. This is the TCG; multipliers tend to be too strong. Just change Weakness to a flat +20; a free "Muscle Band" is plenty good!
- The game either has too few Types or too many Types, depending on the exact goal. Good game play through preserving video game relationships means no more than two video game Types per TCG Type (preferably striving for 1:1). Good TCG-based gameplay means fewer Types. Both make me think more Types needed rearranging.
- No real complaints with the errata. If we nitpick, I wonder if certain cards are going to be worth playing, or I could ask why a lot of those cards didn't read "...up to..." since the beginning.
- For the love of common sense, just issue errata for Professor Juniper and Professor Sycamore, so they're also named Professor's Research!
- I don't care for the new name for the"between phase" but I don't have anything better for it (including "between phase" XP). I'll get used to it.
- Adding a new standardized term is good. Heal/Recover, though, almost feel reversed. Probably because they each make sense in the same context. I'll get used to it.
- "Once during your turn" probably also ought to have been removed, for similar reasons. If it makes more sense to just say "All Abilities work like this unless stated otherwise..." yeah, do that.
Still, it is a good thing.
- Maybe good? I think I'll have to wait and see how this plays out.
This is exciting. I really like the errata, and this is the first major official news from Pokemon we've had in a long time! Although I really hate the V-Max mechanic, this is some interesting stuff to consider for the Sword & Shield era. I feel like the game has badly needed some refreshing, so I'm glad to see some changes.
Ehhh... the problem is balancing, though. You have VG-level type dispersion, you have a much harder time balancing the weakness/resistances. Unless you change how those work also (so cards are weak to multiple types and resistant to multiple types, etc.), it's too hard to have sufficient type coverage - it's too hard _now_, not to mention with all possible types. You'll end up with balance issues that are unintended/unexpected.
I really don't think the no T1 supporter rule is going to be a good thing. Now it's really luck based if you decided to go first. Do you risk being donked to have a better setup or not? That's the question now and that's a bad question to have.
They should've done no attaching energy on the first turn if you go first so the player who goes first gets an evolutionary advantage (because they'll be the first player to get to evolve) and the player who goes second gets an energy attaching advantage to balance it out.
They should've done no attaching energy on the first turn if you go first so the player who goes first gets an evolutionary advantage (because they'll be the first player to get to evolve) and the player who goes second gets an energy attaching advantage to balance it out.
Just say "mega" in your head every time "V-max" is written and you'll be fine
They'll probably keep metal weakness but loose dark resistance because some dark types are poison types. That's my guess.
Balancing is something TPCI is pretty good at, though. Don't you think they considered that as a possibility? I'm guessing this is the compromise that came out of a _lot_ of playtesting (and wouldn't it be amazing to be in that group...) It may not work perfectly, but first is still such an advantage that I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, at least for now. (And don't forget, there are undoubtedly lots of cards planned to help make this still playable - Dedenne, Mismagius, etc. types that help you out on the first turn just become more important.)
I just personally don't like the fact that your starting hand has to be significantly better now in order to get that first turn advantage or you could just straight up get donked. I think it'll just overly encourage big basic decks with large Dedenne and ball card counts. If you go first, you setup first, if you go second, your opponent had better not be playing an evolution deck because otherwise you'll just wreck their limited first turn setup since they can't play as many search cards due to the lack of space.
Well, let's see what happens, perhaps? It might end up with a bit more "luck" introduced, certainly, but I for one would like to see the luck of the first coinflip be minimized; if going first worries you that much, then go second!
I'm sure we'll see more ball search in the game, but we probably won't see any more than we had in 2018 standard... 4 nest ball 4 ultra ball 2 timer ball sound familiar?
Errata means the former - all cards of that name are retroactively defined as having the new text. You can play the old card.
