Raw card advantage is typically the most important metric in analyzing yugioh because of how powerful individual cards can be and how much they can swing things in a new direction.
Raw card advantage is the starting point, not the ending point, even in Yu-Gi-Oh... and we are discussing Pokémon, and only referencing Yu-Gi-Oh in order to further that discussion of Pokémon. Card advantage, deck advantage, discard advantage, Energy advantage, field advantage, hand advantage, Prize advantage... there are many other forms of advantage in a TCG, but which aren't raw card advantage. Yeah, even card advantage isn't always the same as raw card advantage.
I played from approximately the Spring of 2002 through about the Summer of 2009. I based my argument not on the ever changing card pool but on fundamental aspects of game design. When Mystical Space Typhoon hasn't been worth it, has it not been because it has been crowded out by even more potent cards (larger mountains) or because as the format adjusts and players run less potential targets because "They'll just get MST'd." We actually have seen that with Tool removal in the current game; a few Tools are just so good (often providing immediate return) that they never go away, but overall volume of Tools will wax and wane , with Tool removal following suit.
It also never negated, so even though it was a quick play you could not activate it in response to anything to negate it (continuous cards are an exception but they are not negated by it, it destroys them and they do not get an effect because they must remain on the field.)
I consider the concept of "its a bad card anyway so it doesn't matter" a cop-out and a pretty dishonest way to debate because it doesn't offer anything constructive to the debate. Why is Magnezone bad? Why is Clawitzer bad? Why is Golduck Break bad? Why are any non Shaymin EX/Hoopa EX cards bad?
An insufficient amount of cards would be aided by Garbodor being banned. It is not the most broken card right now and if we got rid of all cards of a similar caliber, we'd do away with most of the card pool. Most of the competitive field has already adjusted, and many if not most of the decks which would benefit from Garbodor being banned would not become competitive due to the many other powerful cards that would keep them down.
...
No really @crystal_pidgeot let me know if that sounds a bit better.
@Otaku Im not sure what you mean. Garbodor is like Startling Megaphone to me. It offers too much card advantage. Hex Maniac is the same way as well but worst since its on a trainer card. While hex is harder to play (i.e. over other supporters you could play) than Garbodor, it still can be spammed via VS Seekers and other recovery methods.
The thing I see people saying is "X card is bad whether or not Gabordor is around" and I think this is a false statement. Garbodor is like Pot of Greed, which was banned because it makes good decks better because of card advantage. Decks that can use Garbodor are much better off. It cost you 4 spots in a 60 card deck to counter my engine which is 7 or more cards. All Garbodor has to do is sit there while you attack with m Mewtwo EX. My Magnezone deck for example would be able to trade attacks. The Zapdos reprint coming soon trades well with these decks. So does Pikachu EX, Raikou or some other non electric deck using Magnezone for the energy acceleration. Clawitzer has a cool ability and one I'm exploring with Pidgeot EX. Clawitzer also benefits other mega decks. Other Pokemon have fun and unique abilities as well but all of them are stopped by Garbodor, meaning you can't play if you pick one of these deck. Garbodor offers way too much card advantage to the player that uses it. It forces players to run aggro decks we see now and look at my last post I made about this.
I don't see the point of arguing wether Garbodor should be banned or not because it won't be. When Shiftry was banned, it was banned because it created four scenarios that made for a stupid game. Trump Card was banned as it denied players of ever achieving a win condition and allowed players to use infinite copies of cards without ever worrying about running out or depleting resources to fast or carelessly.
Garbodor does not do any of these things in the format. The lack of tool removal makes the card seem overpowered but remember:
Very few possible standard archetypes use abilities as part of their strategy (though to be fair, Vileplume vs Garbodor is whoever gets theirs out quicker maintains their lock longer as Garbodor decks can hex/attach tool card).
There are only so many decks that Garbodor can be put in. I can only think of Mega Mewtwo variants, Mega Scizor variants, Mega Manectric variants, Giratina/typed attackers variants (dark, fairy, etc.) and big basic variants that can utilize Garbodor.
Even decks with abilities can get rid of Garbodor. Volcanion and Magnezone decks can Lysandre Garbodor after manually attaching/using Blacksmith (for fire decks), take out Garbodor and force the opponent to attempt to set up another one if they haven't already or be overwhelmed by abilities.
Additionally, when Puzzle of Time was released, many players called for a ban on Sableye immediately thinking that there was no way that anything could beat this.
They were very, very wrong.
Not only did Sableye not make much of an appearance at winter regionals, almost every deck there was made to counter it. Sableye with Puzzles also lost to its own inconsistency and inability to play necessary cards in irder to fit the Puzzles.
I know that this is a slightly different scenario, but my point is that people who think that "said card is unbeatable, ban it" are not thinking this through and don't realize that you can beat anything (except for Sneasel/Slowking which led to THAT being banned), and if these people bothered to do any testing at all, they'd find that Garbodor isn't the source of toxicity they think it is.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that we will get some kind of tool removal card soon because TPCI aren't lazy morons like people seem to think. So quit your whining.
@crystal_pidgeot I was about to do a mega post (yes, this is the short one) in response to your most recent comment, but I realized, it mostly boils down to "We disagree." For the record, running a Magnezone deck on the PTCGO, and I finally lost to a using Garbodor deck a few decks ago. It was not my first loss because the deck has issues.
My premise with the game of Pokémon is that its broken. Not badly or irreparably, but it is still out of whack. I've explained some of this in detail to you elsewhere; Evolutions aren't balanced, and that's just the example and not the entire list. Most cards (I estimate upwards of 90%) are just not competitive; a few people can figure out how to surprise the rest of us making something work, but even then it might be as much because of the timing (call it the Spanish Inquisition because no one expects it) as to the actual combos involved. If you want to enjoy fun or unique Abilities, either you've got to be amazing at this game (not an option in every case) or you've got to save it for "fun" play.
The list of cards that encourage or practically require the game have a blistering pace is too long to list. Even the highlights list. I am not sure how much good it would do; I do not want this as the status quo, but you have not convinced me that banning Garbodor is either a plausible course of action, nor that it will actually give you want you want. Again, one of the decks you're claiming is destroyed by Garbdor? I'm getting destroyed by a lot more things, or perhaps I should say the deck itself because it lacks sufficient space for everything I need for it to both set up reliably, have staying power, and have the versatility to handle other problem match-ups besides versus Garbodor. Even if we were organizing to lobby for something, a counter to Garbodor or pseudo-erratum to tone it down make more sense (not advocating the latter, it just makes more sense than a ban).
This is not the same as fast/easy Item lock. I can build decks that do not rely upon Abilities, either for set up or for the deck's main strategy; they may be enhanced by them, or I might need something like Shaymin-EX (ROS) for the first turn, but I won't be crushed by that T2 Garbodor (if it becomes a thing to drop it T1, I reserve the right to change my mind). I was never able to cut enough Items that Item lock in those scenarios did not hurt me; Items remain important for setup/maintenance through out pretty much the entire game.
@Otaku I dont actually think Garbodor should be banned. The balance was that we could turn off its ability and now we can't do that. Something should be done to address this rather than placing the blame on the cards that aren't as powerful as things people expect to be good.
@Otaku I dont actually think Garbodor should be banned. The balance was that we could turn off its ability and now we can't do that. Something should be done to address this rather than placing the blame on the cards that aren't as powerful as things people expect to be good.
I think I understand; I believe you may be suffering from one of my own problems. You know what you mean, but some of us are having a hard time understanding your words in the context you actually intended. I mean others may flat out disagree as well. I can live with this new status quo; I would enjoy a better balanced format, but the last time I was both active and fond of a format was probably a decade ago (and even then I knew it had some significant flaws). Since then its either been "Otaku on hiatus" or "Otaku accepts what he cannot change and works on crafting his arguments for why it should be changed."
So to be clear, even I think a massive banning of all the cards I consider problematic would do more harm than good. I can accept and work within what I perceive to be the new status quo, but would prefer we had an answer for Garbodorbeyond "Lysandre it up front and OHKO it" because I want something that can work in Ability heavy decks, which often won't be able to "get going" under Ability lock and/or won't have space for more complex counters.
You know, nowadays, I can't help but wonder what people even need to run Garbodor for. The most I can see people using it for now is to have a more reliable means to hit Safeguard Carbink and stopping Greninja BREAK. I can't tell if people don't use BREAKthrough Magnezone because Garbodor exists or because it suffers from the Stage 2 Pokemon curse (it's just so slow to set up). It could be used to stop Vileplume, but in essence, that all boils down to a coin flip.
In a nutshell, Garbodor is a Pokemon who's either a colossal waste of space or the most meta call a player can make before an event. It just depends on what people are running at the time and how overbearing abilities would be in the first place.
You know, nowadays, I can't help but wonder what people even need to run Garbodor for. The most I can see people using it for now is to have a more reliable means to hit Safeguard Carbink and stopping Greninja BREAK. I can't tell if people don't use BREAKthrough Magnezone because Garbodor exists or because it suffers from the Stage 2 Pokemon curse (it's just so slow to set up).
Now we get to wondering if the decks in the Meta are the decks in the Meta because of Garbodor's presence, or despite it. What decks would be bigger if the trash king wasn't around? Just an example with a deck I've been playing lately, how big could Alakazam be if megaphone was still standard legal?
I think people underestimate the TCPI design team too quickly. It's no accident that there's no tool removal options in Standard right now. Because of that, Garbodor becomes a centralizing presence and I for one, am glad there is no Smogon-like entity decreeing this as a bad thing. You build your decks to have an answer to it, the same way you build your decks to have an answer to any other big presence in the Metagame. hell that's practically the definition of 'a Metagame'. How the hivemind reacts to itself.
It's not gamebreaking. The two banworthy cards in recent memory show you what a game-breaker is. And they were rightly banned. The closest thing to a banworthy card that wasn't in recent memory, is probably Battle Compressor. To me, this was an unforseen side effect of LTC getting banned. TCPI screwed up and their invention of Karen to make BC less of a toxic presence in expanded shows they can hold their hands up when they make a mess of things. They could have just removed Compressor, but then the knock-on effect of decks like Night March and Vespiquen fall from grace very quickly.
So rightfully, BC wasn't banned. It was overpowered sure, but it wasn't gamebreaking. Instead it defined the Meta. And people adapted to it and played around it. None of the BC-heavy decks won Worlds. And we'll do the same thing with the trashking.
If Garbodor got banned then what.., Vileplume becomes the next OP card and people call for it's banning. And then item-heavy decks become the next big thing and.. so on and so forth. I hate to be blunt but basically,
Counters do exist. Someone said earlier that Lysandre was not a counter but .. of course it is? I don't know if this is even worth arguing the point if anyone believes otherwise. You make sure you can Lysandre & hit for 100. If your deck can't do that you've got bigger problems than this card. Or you snipe it at the bench. Or you work in a Pokemon with a tool removing attack. Or you make a deck that ability lock can't hurt. There are good decks and there are bad decks and if your ability-reliant deck limps out of the game as soon as a Garb gets a tool attached then that's on you to come up with an answer.
IMO removing the tool removal cards in one foul swoop is actually a very clever piece of design. Because I'm now forced to kill the thing, and can't just drop a Xerosic, and well now it's a seven card game. Sooner or later we'll get some tool removal again. Until then, we'll just have to factor it into our builds as a threat the same way we have to factor every one of the other 1000+ cards in.
I think I understand; I believe you may be suffering from one of my own problems. You know what you mean, but some of us are having a hard time understanding your words in the context you actually intended. I mean others may flat out disagree as well. I can live with this new status quo; I would enjoy a better balanced format, but the last time I was both active and fond of a format was probably a decade ago (and even then I knew it had some significant flaws). Since then its either been "Otaku on hiatus" or "Otaku accepts what he cannot change and works on crafting his arguments for why it should be changed."
So to be clear, even I think a massive banning of all the cards I consider problematic would do more harm than good. I can accept and work within what I perceive to be the new status quo, but would prefer we had an answer for Garbodorbeyond "Lysandre it up front and OHKO it" because I want something that can work in Ability heavy decks, which often won't be able to "get going" under Ability lock and/or won't have space for more complex counters.
I guess thats the issue. I always considered myself a force for good for the betterment of things but that doesn't really matter. I try to see both sides of the argument rather than finding an excuse as to why something is or isn't right for something. I would consider banning all problematic cards bad as well. We do that and something else replaces it but the problem is they wont let BW series die and designed cards to fight against them. Now that BW is done, we have really overpowered cards designed to keep up with them, which are still in the format. Garbodor shouldn't exist, N shouldn't still be here and the discard draw 7 cards should have rotated with them as well. The only thing I fear is this continues into Sun and Moon, though we get better than EX class Pokemon that can get around EX blocking effects, which also has its own balance issues.
I agree with some of what you said Yog, so it may sound more negative than intended as instead of repeating where we agree, I'm going to point out where we disagree.
One clearly broken card was banned (Lysandre's Trump Card); Shiftry (BW: Next Destinies 72/99) was a joke until we got Forest of Giant Plants, but being the older card that wasn't interwoven into the megatame until that happened, it was the easier card to band. The good news right now is that the most egregious example is still relatively tame: Vileplume (XY: Ancient Origins 3/98). The bad news that isn't because we have this awesome game balance where a T1 or T2 Item lock isn't a big deal, just insanely fast decks that can set up so quickly that if Vileplume doesn't go first, its crazy lock is less important.
Are implying that decks were not/are not already Item heavy? Even with the trifecta of Seismitoad-EX, Trevenant (XY 55/146), and Vileplume in the format, decks were still Item heavy.
Anyway, this is part of a slippery slope argument. I don't consider it an automatic fallacy, but that might be due to lousy teaching that kept using politically charged examples of current issues with which my instructors disagreed, but which have actually happened since that time. There are people I suspect will never be satisfied and will thus always complain. That is not the same thing as someone who goes from enjoying a game to hating it because when they go to play the game, they actually don't get to play.
"Git gud" is sometimes true. Usually though it is dropped by people riding high on winning. The corrollary to how some people hate a game only because they are losing is that some only love it because they are winning. I know I had both happen to me before! Especially when there are rewards on the line; really hard to admit you won something great by playing a game in a way where it just could not be enjoyable for your opponent. The extreme example is the true hard lock deck, which is thankfully absent in Pokémon: Player 1 takes his or her first turn, completely locks down Player 2, so that all Player 2 gets to do is pass and hope that Player 1 makes a mistake, or concede and accept his or her loss.
Somethings that are winning strategies? That aren't like "a killer move" but are the entire experience when facing a deck? They might legitimately be bad mechanics/strategies for the game to encourage. I like control/disruption strategies, but I've learned to hate easily implemented hard locks, that either create a total lockdown or deny a key deck component for setting up to my opponent, which brings us too...
Counters do exist. Someone said earlier that Lysandre was not a counter but .. of course it is? I don't know if this is even worth arguing the point if anyone believes otherwise. You make sure you can Lysandre & hit for 100. If your deck can't do that you've got bigger problems than this card. Or you snipe it at the bench. Or you work in a Pokemon with a tool removing attack. Or you make a deck that ability lock can't hurt. There are good decks and there are bad decks and if your ability-reliant deck limps out of the game as soon as a Garb gets a tool attached then that's on you to come up with an answer.
What if your deck cannot quickly set up an attack without either Abilities or a Supporter? What if my opponent simply sets up twoGarbodor at once? If you consider that to be a baseline requirement for a competitive deck, okay. Some of us don't. It isn't just "Well my deck is special!"; Garbotoxin is a recycled Ability. The first time Garbotoxin was a "thing", there was a way to shut it off while allowing other Abilities to turn on: Tool Scrapper. This meant Ability heavy decks could still try to function; Garbodor would be a hard match-up but not an autoloss.
You are entitled to your opinion that when Card A hard counters Card B, it is up to the player to find the counter... but what happens if there is no counter to find? If you're just so good that you know there is a real counter (not just Lysandre for a KO when even with a ready attacker that might not be a counter). I've been playing this game for a long time, and that happens. It is almost worse when an answer is found but like a decade late; does that mean the-powers-that-be couldn't accept they needed to tell us or that they also thought there was no answer?
So... see what I mean? I think the reality is that the-powers-that-be do not want an Ability heavy format, even though there are some potent ones in the card pool. So I'm not going to waste time trying to make them work, especially when making a Stage 2 is above my pay grade. Since I am not usually being paid to think about these things. So I'll just accept it and design decks were Abilities aren't essential... or accept that decks I design where they are have an autoloss (or near autoloss).
I find Wobbuffet to be better than Garbo in almost every single way in the current format in so many different ways.
Pros
- It's actually a good attacker
- It's a basic (Can lock down shaymin's turn one whether you go fist or not)
- Doesn't need an Item
- 10 more HP
- Takes less space away from your deck
- Psychics are immune
Cons
- Needs to be active (not a huge con if you've already gained tempo over your opponent and can retire it from the active)
- Weak to lysandre/escape rope (Well well another ability lock card with the same weakness, never heard anyone ever complain about this before)
- Psychics are immune
I have found in my testing for this to be the case as well, and I feel that Wabbuffet is a much better meta call than garbo is, if your deck can support it.
What I mean is it sounds to me like "the card is bad anyway so what does it matter" and this isn't ever the right way to approach whether or not something is bad or good for something. I would consider Garbodor as is as a game breaking card because of its effect on the meta. Octillery for example is a good card and is a decent substitute for players who doesn't have Shaymin EX. This means that player would have a card in their deck they can't use against Garbodor. Other abilities that rely on setup all throughout the game also become useless. This is something that ruins the game balance. Printing a item that discards tools fixes this.. They can ban it too, it doesn't really matter much to me.
I consider the concept of "its a bad card anyway so it doesn't matter" a cop-out and a pretty dishonest way to debate because it doesn't offer anything constructive to the debate. Why is Magnezone bad? Why is Clawitzer bad? Why is Golduck Break bad? Why are any non Shaymin EX/Hoopa EX cards bad?
I was talking about the meta, which is from my perspective shaping up to be Mega-focused, with no real ability-focused setup aside from Shaymin and Hoopa. I'm not seeing a lot of long-term ability decks out there (Octillery or Magnezone or any of the ones you mention). As a result, Garbodor doesn't have a huge impact. This is all based on empirical evidence, looking at what people are talking about here and on channels like Omnipoke, google and so on. I'm just drawing a conclusion based on evidence and interpretation.
I don't think Magnezone or Clawitzer are bad. But I don't think they're competitive at the moment as they're a little clunky and better options exist. Can you chain Raikous against Damage Swapping Mewtwo, healing Sceptile or Despair Ray every turn?
And I'm not being dishonest, I have nothing to gain from winning a debate on the internet about a card game. I'm certainly not taking part in a debate where one side is based on abject speculation and where my words are twisted to discredit my point.
I was talking about the meta, which is from my perspective shaping up to be Mega-focused, with no real ability-focused setup aside from Shaymin and Hoopa. I'm not seeing a lot of long-term ability decks out there (Octillery or Magnezone or any of the ones you mention). As a result, Garbodor doesn't have a huge impact. This is all based on empirical evidence, looking at what people are talking about here and on channels like Omnipoke, google and so on. I'm just drawing a conclusion based on evidence and interpretation.
I don't think Magnezone or Clawitzer are bad. But I don't think they're competitive at the moment as they're a little clunky and better options exist. Can you chain Raikous against Damage Swapping Mewtwo, healing Sceptile or Despair Ray every turn?
The meta is going to be mega focused. I have a m Mewtwo EX/Garbodor deck built and for the most part, I haven't really needed to use it. At worst its just discard fodder.
For me, I like Octillery, not because I dont have Shaymin EX or anything. Its because I like the security of being immune to N and having the ability to draw my hand back to 5 cards.I don't like playing meta decks so Im not interested in playing anything until Pidgeot EX drops but as a 100% rogue player, I love looking for cool abilities. I'm telling you right now I'm playing Magnezone/Zapdos/Stuff because I love Zapdos so thats enough for me to use Magnezone. You may not see it but being able to hit for 180 damage a turn and KOing EX Pokemon when all I need to do is drop lightning energy is pretty good.
If I were to say to you that M Audino EX was going to win worlds, I would have been laughed at but here we are, where one did win worlds so I wouldn'twouldn't write anything off. Its hard to see value in anything else when all people care about are meta decks. Some people like using decks with strategies like this but they can't because of Garbodor and no viable way to discard its tool. Its removing an entire play style. I'm sure you can make magic happen against those decks you listed but I would like to see that evidence if you have it because as of now, as a player who uses Pokemon with abilities that are Setup and Ring, not having a way to turn of Garbodor affects my deck choices.
I'll be honest @Otaku, most of what I wanted to say I already said, and even at that, I was repeating the arguments a lot of people put forward in the thread already, and I'm not one to labour a point. I mostly wanted to put my own spin on it where rather than just defending the card, how I like the direction the designers went here, and I think it's actually a good thing for the format.
Buuuut, I also know from reading around the forum you're a man who appreciates a longer conversation so I'll keep it going for that sake.
My item-heavy deck example was just a throwaway theory deck to fit to Vileplume. A better example would be the circular pattern of ability-based decks > Garb decks > decks that need to dedicate themselves to working around garb > decks that operate in a non-garb meta - i.e. back to ability based decks. My point there was you can't fix the loop by removing a pillar - if you do that the whole thing collapses and the one it was keeping down now runs rampant. Now that Garb features in this loop so prominently could be seen as a problem, or that that could be the loop around which the Meta rotates. This was where I was going by saying it centralises the meta.
Is it a meta-centralising card? Yes I think so, but not hugely. So was Night March last season, but I don't believe Garb will have quite that impact. I do think Night March's dominance was a knock-on effect of the LTC ban, and not something TCPI had designed the future sets and cards around. So there was a design screw-up there which led to NM hitting Tier Zero status and the meta being centralised around (credit to someone here recently) "Night March, those that kill Night March, and those that kill the ones that kill Night March". Garb here and now is something that is by design and not by accident, and I don't believe for a minute it will have that same kind of impact or the same degree of this centralisation.
But just because something centralises the Meta doesn't make it a banable offense. There is always going to be something that centralises the Meta - something that it rotates around. In this era of instant sharing of decklists globally the minute one wins some backwater competition, how could there not be? It's kind of exciting to me to see how quickly people adapt to every new deck that pops up - fine tune it to their own take, find what beats it, put it away in the memory bank for later..
For me it boils down to two simple questions; does the card break the game; or are there zero ways to counter it - they're the two bits I bolded in my first post. And since the answer to both of these is no, then there's no call for a ban.
If it was yes to either than fair enough, time to start looking at asking for a ban. But while I see you disagreeing with parts of my post, I don't see you refuting one or the other of those. So my to the answer to OP's question of "Should Garbodor be banned?" - is most definitely no, it should not be.
But there are counters, if there weren't, of course it would be bad design. No they aren't as easy as Tool Scrapper/Xerosic/Megaphone like before, but they still exist. On top of that there are also a lot of cons to using the card in your own deck. It being a stage two, and needing the tool, and having hefty retreat and deck space costs, and having a near-unusable attack. That's a pretty good balance for such a powerful ability.
Could it stagnate the meta? (I don't believe so, but) Maybe. If it did, should it then be banned? Still no.
A conversation about is the metagame well-balanced might reach a different conclusion, but that's a topic for another thread.
What if your deck cannot quickly set up an attack without either Abilities or a Supporter? What if my opponent simply sets up two Garbodor at once? If you consider that to be a baseline requirement for a competitive deck, okay. Some of us don't. It isn't just "Well my deck is special!"; Garbotoxin is a recycled Ability. The first time Garbotoxin was a "thing", there was a way to shut it off while allowing other Abilities to turn on: Tool Scrapper.
Well frankly, yes. The baseline of any deck needs to be "can it handle it's likely opponents?". If the answer is no, that's pretty much the line between having a deck, and having a competitive deck. And if you only have a deck and not a competitive deck, well then you take your lumps and your autolosses. And if you have a deck that has no autolosses, well now you've got something that will soon be meta even if it's not yet. Mewtwo is going to be a big player this year one way or another. Should it be banned because a lot of decks can't stand up to it's damage change combo? Not at all.
To hijack Crystal's post before this, and the line about how it "shuts down my deck options"
Some people like using decks with strategies like this but they can't because of Garbodor and no viable way to discard its tool. Its removing an entire play style. I'm sure you can make magic happen against those decks you listed but I would like to see that evidence if you have it because as of now, as a player who uses Pokemon with abilities that are Setup and Ring, not having a way to turn of Garbodor affects my deck choices.
You can make the exact same argument about Mewtwo. I can't play my low-HP basics decks because Mewtwo exists :/ Or I can't run my draw engine smoothly because Vileplume exists :/ And that damned safeguard Carbink means I can't run my EX-only deck :/ Can't play basics because of Jolteon and can't play evolved cos of Glaceon well I guess I can't play anything.
So what do we do? Ban all these cards? Or play around them. They all have counters, none of them are game breaking.
Long story short, I agree on your conclusion that the designers introducing Garbodor in this way, and removing the tool removal options means they are looking to create a less ability reliant format. But I think a big part of my post, and why I knee jerk reacted in the first place, is that previous posters are completely skimming over the fact that this is by design. It's very intentional. TCPI are trying to slow things down in the name of balance and it's on us to adapt to that. How many times in the last year has a new set come out and the reaction been, well it's no Phantom Forces.. surely this is a good thing? A slower format. My read through of the thread up to my post was, ugh, some people just like to complain.
Aside:
"A conversation about is the metagame well-balanced might reach a different conclusion, but that's a topic for another thread. " - I would be interested in this thread I think. Also a thread/blog on why Rogue decks are inherently more attractive (they are to me anyway) than the "big bad meta". Or a third one on just how the speed of the Metagame has changed in today's world of no deck staying secret for long.
@Yog I see where you're coming from but what others should see is not every ability is Forrest Curse, Set Up or <some other lock ability> here. They aren't trying to slow the game down, they are making it faster. Hoopa EX and Shaymin EX, not to mention Professor Sycamore allow for really explosive turns, allowing all player to see over 24 new cards a turn and going for huge numbers a turn. What pains me is you see this a complaining rather than trying to understand where we are coming from. You have no idea what is going on at PCL when they decide to print certain cards - none of us knows that but I can say as a game designer that this isn't something I would intentionally do, for the sake of game balance. Pokemon with abilities aren't the problem, the TPC printing overpowered effects and making them abilities.
Your post comes off the same way as those people who say "They are tired of Gen 1 Pokemon being shoved down their throats" when what they really mean is they are tired of Charizard and Mewtwo. Its not fair to group ALL abilities with Forrest Curse/other lock abilities because Magnezone and Golduck BREAK aren't the problem.
Your other example is purely begging the question. You don't have to run a EX only deck but if you do, you have Hex Maniac and Pokemon Ranger. You don't have to run evolution only deck but you once again have Hex Maniac and Pokemon Ranger. m Mewtwo EX attacks everything effectively but if you want to play your deck with only 60 HP basics, then expect to lose. These all have counters but Garbodor doesn't have anything and wasting a supporter and your attack for the turn when you should be spending resources hitting that m Rayquaza EX isn't a counter.
While it's true we can't know what the designers are planning, we can still imply theory from what they produce and what makes it to final product. If they accidentally forgot that they were killing all tool removal with this rotation, and that Garbodor would still be around, well I'll eat my hat
Your other example is purely begging the question. You don't have to run a EX only deck but if you do, you have Hex Maniac and Pokemon Ranger. You don't have to run evolution only deck but you once again have Hex Maniac and Pokemon Ranger. m Mewtwo EX attacks everything effectively but if you want to play your deck with only 60 HP basics, then expect to lose. These all have counters but Garbodor doesn't have anything and wasting a supporter and your attack for the turn when you should be spending resources hitting that m Rayquaza EX isn't a counter.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I see Lysandre as a perfectly valid counter to Garbodor. You clearly don't. It's not as easy as a Xerosic or a megaphone, but it's not like there are no counters at all.
To follow those examples through, Garb has the benefit of only 100HP. So you just Lysandre and kill. If you're looking at a Jolteon / Glaceon well you have to blow that same supporter, and try to OHKO it. An extra 60HP is not a lot but they are easy to set up and Rough Seas etc.. you're gonna have a bad time. And if you can't OHKO it, well you're gonna need to find the same supporter a second time and blow that too. I see that as very comparable to Garb. On top of which, it's more difficult to set up the Garbodor lock than the Jolt/Glaceon.
I don't mean to be rude, but we're just arguing in circles here so I'll drop it.
While it's true we can't know what the designers are planning, we can still imply theory from what they produce and what makes it to final product. If they accidentally forgot that they were killing all tool removal with this rotation, and that Garbodor would still be around, well I'll eat my hat
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I see Lysandre as a perfectly valid counter to Garbodor. You clearly don't. It's not as easy as a Xerosic or a megaphone, but it's not like there are no counters at all.
To follow those examples through, Garb has the benefit of only 100HP. So you just Lysandre and kill. If you're looking at a Jolteon / Glaceon well you have to blow that same supporter, and try to OHKO it. An extra 60HP is not a lot but they are easy to set up and Rough Seas etc.. you're gonna have a bad time. And if you can't OHKO it, well you're gonna need to find the same supporter a second time and blow that too. I see that as very comparable to Garb. On top of which, it's more difficult to set up the Garbodor lock than the Jolt/Glaceon.
I don't mean to be rude, but we're just arguing in circles here so I'll drop it.
I don't consider it a valid counter. To me, we have counters and hard counters and Lysandre doesn't really count. Zebstrika with Zap Zone is a hard counter to lightning weak Pokemon with a fighting resistance. Lysandre is just a counter to bench sitter so I guess I can concede that to you. This is kind of a patch to the it but not really effective. A counter for it should be just as effective as the lock and not something that takes your attack and supporter to get rid of it.
I think one thing to consider, is that there are certain deck archetypes that exist in almost all tcgs, speed rush/weenies (NM/vespi), big beatdown (Megas), mill (wailord), combo/resource acceleration (metal, fire and electric) & control (quaking punch, trev, garbo, vileplume). (not an exhaustive list) These archetypes were set down by MTG in the early days and still hold true in almost every tcg around.
Now the only really really problematic archetype for pokemon seems to be control. In a game with no way to react to your opponents actions during their turn the only way they can seem to design control decks/cards is with in play global shut down/lock effects. I love control decks in all the games I play, they are often the most challenging and effective decks available when played correctly, but in pokemon it's just "wally into trevenant, win" or "DCE, Quaking punch, go." I think what we need is for TPC to really sit down and think of how they can make a control deck that doesn't involve global locks. Control decks should be like a roll of surgical tools, not a sledgehammer which is what we currently have last/this standard with global locks. (anyone remember yata garuso lock in old school yugioh? That was a nightmare situation)
But that being said, I will almost always play control decks if I can, I'm "that guy" who only plays a mono blue commander deck, and I do love my control in pokemon, but I can still recognise they are broken, it's why I gave up toad back when it was popular, because none of the games were fun, even if I won my local league it was boring. Control should be challenging, it's not.
Glad you're looking for other answers, but remember that you are running a small Basic that needs to attack to discard one Tool. A double Garbodor lock is functionally immune to this trick, and unless you have important Abilities you need reactivated during your opponent's turn or between turns, your opponent can counter this counter for a counter (Garbotoxin itself is a counter to Abilities) by just playing another Tool on Garbodor. Also, giving up an attack on a Basic almost guaranteed to be OHKO'd.
As simple a change as Minccino discarding all Tools on your opponent's side of the field, and I would honestly consider it. Or pulling a bit of a Jirachi (XY: Black Star Promos XY67) by discarding one but then having a protective effect as well, so it has staying power but only while doing its thing.
Most cards (I estimate upwards of 90%) are just not competitive; a few people can figure out how to surprise the rest of us making something work, but even then it might be as much because of the timing (call it the Spanish Inquisition because no one expects it) as to the actual combos involved. If you want to enjoy fun or unique Abilities, either you've got to be amazing at this game (not an option in every case) or you've got to save it for "fun" play.
