Slowking/Sneasel from Neo Genesis

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Shining Rotom

Do the Chillarmy dance!
Member
I don't understand why these cards are so good, and why they were banned. Can someone explain the strategy behind those two?
 
Back then all the pokemon had very low HP and sneasel was able to do quick damage for 2 energy. With the new cards, the pokemon have higher HP making it not much of a threat anymore.

Not sure about Slowking.
 
Sneasel was good at the time because of the damage it could potentially put out. It's already doing 20 because of the special darks, and then more for each heads you get. It isn't as good as it used to be because cards in general had lower hp. Slowking was good because you can cancel out your opponents trainers. The more of them you have out, the smaller chance your opponent has of playing trainers.
 
peetzaman said:
Sneasel was good at the time because of the damage it could potentially put out. It's already doing 20 because of the special darks, and then more for each heads you get. It isn't as good as it used to be because cards in general had lower hp. Slowking was good because you can cancel out your opponents trainers. The more of them you have out, the smaller chance your opponent has of playing trainers.
Click to expand...

Actually it was doing 40 for each head as there were no basic dark energy in those days. so with a full bench plus Sneasel on average you'd be doing on average at least 80 a turn (assuming you flip 2/6 heads) which in those days would be considered broken.
 
X_empoleon_X said:
Actually it was doing 40 for each head as there were no basic dark energy in those days. so with a full bench plus Sneasel on average you'd be doing on average at least 80 a turn (assuming you flip 2/6 heads) which in those days would be considered broken.
Click to expand...
I know, I said 20 because of the special darks, and then more damage for each heads.
 
Well Slowking was mean because they had to put the trainer on the top of their deck if it failed. Slowking was also mistranslated so it really should have not been banned, it's power was only supposed to work if Slowking was active.
 
Sneasel was good cause back then it could hit fast for lots of damage. Slowking was good because its power stacked.
 
Also, Supporters didn't exist, which made Slowking pretty much ruin your set-up, unlike Vileplume (who also does it to both players). I don't think the thread needs to be locked (IDK if they still lock on request anyway), because it still makes for good discussion.
 
We actually applied Slowking differently than Japan did, not exactly sure how they did it though, maybe it didn't stack. The way we used it here is that for each Slowking in play you flip once when your opponent plays a trainer. If you got heads not only did it not work but it went on top of their deck and became dead draw for the next turn. Keep in mind this is when there were no supporters or stadiums, there were JUST trainers. Slowking could effectively shut down the support in ANY deck.
 
It's not that it wosn't supposed to stack, it was only supposed to work if slowking was active (well, I guess it wasn't supposed to stack either). It's weird that they just banned it instead of errata-ing it.
 
That's because WotC's shtick was "play as printed."

Both reasons have been explained, so bye bye thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top