TCG-More Types?

[42 chocolate]

I personally think the TCG should be a bit more like the game by putting types like ice, bug, rock, ground, dragon, poison, ghost, and flying in. I mean, in the games, Psychic types are resistant against Psychic types, not weak against them. However, those Psychic types in the cards that are weak to Psychic Types are either Poison or Psychic in the games, and by saying "Psychic is weak to Psychic" they mean "Psychic is weak to ghost" Am I making sense?

So, what do you think?

 

[penny power]

I personally think the TCG should be a bit more like the game by putting types like ice, bug, rock, ground, dragon, poison, ghost, and flying in. I mean, in the games, Psychic types are resistant against Psychic types, not weak against them. However, those Psychic types in the cards that are weak to Psychic Types are either Poison or Psychic in the games, and by saying "Psychic is weak to Psychic" they mean "Psychic is weak to ghost" Am I making sense?

So, what do you think?

Yeah, you're making sense. It would make the game complicated, but it would add to the depth, and I think give the cards more value. Now, DRAGON, normal and flying are all colorless. T_T It's kinda wierd.

 

[42 chocolate]

I personally think the TCG should be a bit more like the game by putting types like ice, bug, rock, ground, dragon, poison, ghost, and flying in. I mean, in the games, Psychic types are resistant against Psychic types, not weak against them. However, those Psychic types in the cards that are weak to Psychic Types are either Poison or Psychic in the games, and by saying "Psychic is weak to Psychic" they mean "Psychic is weak to ghost" Am I making sense?

So, what do you think?

Yeah, you're making sense. It would make the game complicated, but it would add to the depth, and I think give the cards more value. Now, DRAGON, normal and flying are all colorless. T_T It's kinda wierd.

yeah, normal's not weak to ice or electric...

 

[red blastoise]

I personally think the TCG should be a bit more like the game by putting types like ice, bug, rock, ground, dragon, poison, ghost, and flying in. I mean, in the games, Psychic types are resistant against Psychic types, not weak against them. However, those Psychic types in the cards that are weak to Psychic Types are either Poison or Psychic in the games, and by saying "Psychic is weak to Psychic" they mean "Psychic is weak to ghost" Am I making sense?

So, what do you think?

Yeah, you're making sense. It would make the game complicated, but it would add to the depth, and I think give the cards more value. Now, DRAGON, normal and flying are all colorless. T_T It's kinda wierd.

yeah, normal's not weak to ice or electric...

neither are dragons, not to lightning at least.

 

[Shaymin Lv.X]

Poison type,Ice type and Dragon type is good..

 

[Amt]

This belongs in the TCG Discussion forum. Please me more careful when posting threads.

*moves*

 

[qnetykz]

it would actually make the game too complicated...the basis for the TCG is the elements that are used...In the video game. within those elements there are sub-categories, I will list the break down of weaknesses (which most of you already know, I won't be listing the weakness for the elements themselves)

Psychic: Poison (weak to psychic), Ghost (weak to dark), Psychic
Water: Ice (weak to Steel), Water
Fighting: Ground (weak to water and grass), Rock (weak to ground/fighting and fighting), Fighting
Grass: Bug (weak to flying), Grass
Lightning: no subcategories
Fire: no subcategories
Dark: no subcategories
Steel: no subcategories
Colorless: Flying (weak to lightning), Dragon (weak to dragon/colorless, weak to ice/water), Normal (weak to fighting)

trying to add the subcategories as types overcomplicates the game, which is bad for younger players...even though it would add some depth, most of this is shown within Weaknesses and Resistances...which in turn simplifies the game and makes so they don't have to make a billion cards per set, or have to create more sets per year for variety...cost effectiveness

the balance of the game is real good, WOTC did a good job in making this TCG, and PUSA has done a good job in keeping the balance in the game, there have been some mistakes, but you will get that in any TCG

 

[Ka$h Money]

You need to keep the TCG simple as adding more and more types will over complicate the game and make decks to fussy on specific counters and so on. Also how many energies would they have to make for them to be hard to obtain

 

[Mrs. Aforcer]

Balancing the game'd be really difficult to do, then, though.

 

[42 chocolate]

Still, it doesn't make any sense that Psychic types are weak to Psychic (Ghost) Types...

 

[nardd]

it seems to make perfect sense to me... the newer cards tend to do ok with weaknesses even if the typing isn't all that clear. psychic is weak to ghost in the game, but in the tcg purple psychic is weak to psychic ghost. The only problem is that purple psychic is weak to itself...

fewer types means less confusion and keeps the game reasonable without making each type its own color. The differences would get confusing anyway colorwise (imagine the difference between rock, ground, and fighting?)

 

[yoyofsho16]

This would make it a LOT harder to tech for other decks. For example, let's say someone techs a Regigigas for Flygon decks. If this were to take effect, they would have to tech another dragon, limiting the pool of good techs you could use, and also limiting the synergy different cards might have with eachother.

 

[elekid957]

the only type that i think needs to be added is poison. i mean, it kinda made sense as a grass type, but a psychic/ghost type? ;/ just because poison is purple doesn't mean you have to do that...

 

[qnetykz]

the only type that I think needs to be added is poison. I mean, it kinda made sense as a grass type, but a psychic/ghost type? ;/ just because poison is purple doesn't mean you have to do that...

poison is actually pretty evenly spread between grass and psychic, and you can't forget about the few fighting poisons out there too