TCG Weekly Discussion #1: Playstyle

C

Celebi23

Aspiring Trainer
Advanced Member
Member

TCG Weekly Discussion
Week #1 - Playstyle​


Background Information:
Much like the real world weekly discussions, the TCG Weekly Discussions are threads posted to get a good discussion going about various aspects of the Pokémon TCG. If you have any ideas for topics we could discuss in the future, please PM me or leave a profile comment.

Discussion Starter:
Comments like, "your list looks solid, but I just couldn't get it to work because of my playstyle" are common in the Pokémon TCG. So, what do you think playstyle really is? What in-game decisions and deck/decklist choices separate one playstyle from another? Is one playstyle or group of playstyles better than the rest? Discuss!

This discussion started on 12/13/2011.
 
Deck style is often very important in formats. Historically, lock and accel has been very powerful. You can see this anywhere from the old Rocklock decks to Plox much later on. Even now, lock decks are very powerful. The next most powerful deck type is accel. Accel decks try to power energies out ASAP to attack with big, unfair attacks that shouldn't take only 1 turn to power out. LBS to reshiram, these decks are a force to be reckened with. That being said, each playstyle has its time in the spotlight (unless your playstyle is to not attack... but even then... chandelure is doing work). Lock and Accel have historically been the best of decks out there. I, personally, like to play lock decks as they rarely have great or bad matchups. They are, more often than not, skill based and require strategy (and a bit of luck) to pull off a win against any deck. There are no safe matchups, so all games are good games. Currently, though, I dislike lock decks in format, so I'm sticking with Eelzone.
 
^Yeah, I think that's the most simplified version of what playstyle is. I was hoping the discussion would go a little deeper than that, so I guess I'll try to steer it in that direction.

Really, I believe there are two basic playstyles - safe and unsafe. The people who play safely (like myself) opt to run the simplest lists with the most consistency cards, and the decks that are the least reliant on luck. The people with a reckless playstyle will play the gamble decks (Sharpedo, Durant, Vanilluxe, CaKE, Archeops) that involve big risks in exchange for big payoffs. The majority of better players seem to play on the safe side, so the other half is not as well-represented at the top tables, even if they're not necessarily inferior decks. However, it is easily argued that the better players play the safer decks simply because they are better, and I tend to agree with this statement.

A lot of in-game decisions are also governed by the safe/unsafe division. For example, I always play under the assumption my opponent has whatever cards they need in their hand. If they prove they don't have the cards by not playing them when they should, I move to capitalize on that after the fact. Other players will make gambles and assume the opponent does not have, for example, a Switch in their hand, so they'll Catcher a Typhlosion and do 130 to it with a PlusPowered Blue Flare. This allows for a much, much bigger payoff if it turns out they don't have the card, yet if they do have the card, making these types of plays can easily cost you the game.

On the other hand, there are some decisions players make that could be argued as safe or as unsafe. For example, if you have a dead hand and you Sage T1 into a card you absolutely need, two cards you definitely don't, and then a Communication and a Magnezone. Do you take the Magnezone, since you only run three, and you don't know if one or two are prized? Because your hand is dead and you probably won't be able to get it out in the next couple turns, it's risky to take it and hope to draw a way to get Rare Candy, but it's risky to discard it if other copies are prized. On the other hand, if you take the Communication, you're banking everything on your Cleffa not being prized, and drawing a good hand off the Cleffa. Having the Cleffa out is automatically a free prize late-game, and you're already down one key attacker before you're even setup. However, it means you're not relying on topdecks provided you draw a good hand, and you have the chance to speed your setup up by one or two turns. There are pros and cons to both options, and I suppose in this situation either decision is unsafe, but certainly one is safer than the other. And then was playing the Sage before a prize check an unsafe decision in itself? Or was it a safe play to avoid having to rely on topdecks, since nothing else in your hand is playable?

Let's assume that for the purpose of the above example you have no Pokémon in your hand, and you would have to play Super Scoop Up to pick up your benched Magnemite (Tynamo is active) to use the Communication. This way you can't argue to take the Communication and communicate in for Magnezone if the opportunity presents itself. Let's also assume you're using a weighted dice or something, so you know you'll hit heads on the SSU.
 
I would say that I am a pretty safe player. It took me a while to figure this out, but if it is possible for a good opponent to do something, they are going to do it. I try to think of all of the possiblities, for instance, figuring out how many cards would they need to get something out of their active, evolve, and attach an energy or something along those lines. I sometimes take risks, but I try to run at least a couple numbers in my head, but a lot of the times I make risky decisions. For instance if I have a chance at a donk, on lets say a coin flip, and if I go that donk, I will have a cruddy set up the rest of the game, I am probably going to be going for the donk.

As for the speed/lock aspect of the game, I usually like Speed decks, but I can appreciate interesting locks, for instance, my old Rapidash lock, or something like FlyLock from a couple formats ago. For the most part I go straight for the throat with speed decks. Last format, almost every deck that I built was a speed stage 2 deck, 3 BTS, 4 Pokédrawer + and that jazz. This format I have been looking into Eel Zone and ZPST, simply because it is something that I can make a speedy list of. I tried playing google's, but was simply irritated that I couldn't get a T2 set up with it, so I stopped trying.

The other thing that I do a lot, and would almost say I specialize in, would be unexpected techs. I love playing a copy paste meta deck, and right when people think they know every card in my deck, I pull out some weird counter like Unown CURE or something. For instance, last year at State Championships, I was playing a Gyarados list, but I was playing 4 Night Teleporter, 2 Azelf and 4 Special Darks (this eventually became the norm, but whatever). I would do things like pretend that a Magikarp was prized, just to draw out an SP player's Power Spray, so that I could try to get an Uxie with Night Teleporter. It actually worked pretty well, I ended up taking third place at the tourney, probably would have gone farther if I would have been paired against one of the two DialgaChomps in top as opposed to the only LuxChomp. I like how quickly this turned into a rant, I miss the past :(

[/sand=Vulpix Yolk] -Celebi23
 
As far as playstyle goes for me, I've always been someone who wants as much consistancy as possible, but not too much to slow my deck down. (I've made that mistake before, but I learned from it) I try to stay away from very risky cards that could cause me the loss, such as Sage's Training, mainly because it causes me to take a chance with what I'm discarding, I prefer to use cards that let me know what I will discard, such as Professor Juniper and Junk Arm. I also love lock decks and anything that can hit hard consistantly. I've tried to make speed decks, but none of them work out for me very well. (unless it's something that's meant to be set-up turn 2 or 3, such as ReshiPhlosion) My current decks as of typing this are ReshiPhlosion, Gothitelle/Reuniclus, EelZone with Thundurus, an awesome rogue deck which I have no name for, and KingBuzz. (which I plan on tearing apart)
 
I try and play assuming that my opponent has whatever they need, yet I sometimes make irrational decisions thinking that there's no way they'd be able to pull off whatever they need to gain the lead, and then they somehow make it happen.

When it comes to deckbuilding, I really dont have much of a disctinct "style". I mean, I always have to include at least one Twins in any deck, I pick PONT over any other draw supporter, and I usually include " Energy Search" in any low energy count deck that I play.
 
I'm not sure that this is a distinct playstyle, but I like using decks that hit hard fast, like Donphan. My D&D deck is by far my favorite deck ever. I topped with it multiple times, and it is still going strong. When I build my decks, I go for extreme consistency, making sure that I usually hit everything when I need it. Another thing I do is make sure that I have the option to play at least 1 draw supporter each turn (PONT or Juniper). Generally I spam Supporters when deckbuilding.
 
I play really slow. Like, almost against-the-rules slow.
And I almost never say the correct names for things.
In example, just the other day where I should have said "Devour, discard the top four cards of your deck." I said "Eating disorder for four" which then morphed in to "Susan Bordo for the disc"
I am also known to say "Heh or sus?" or any much less appropriate version of that rather than "Heads or tails?"

As for decks, I usually just play whatever I can afford, which is often nothing.
My last two decks have been Beedrill HGSS and Durant.
 
in my opinion playing style is extremly important in pokemon becouse when you player mirror decks it normally comes down to if your playing style is better suited for the sitiation of the game this also applays in normal matchs but not as much it also comes down to drawing the right cards a getting a good strong set up as quikly as posible for late game to take the upper hand also if your playing style is anoying and slow like mine is you would probebly prefer to play either fast decks or ones like googlees deck as disruption can riun these sorts of decks.

as for deck building i normally chose a deck i like to play then look at lots of deck lists and create good and strong stratagies that can help in any sitiuation then add in my own stratagies to back these up and i also like to look for consistance in the deck i normally do this by playtesting so much a tweking the deck until there is nothing more that you think is going to help your deck then after i would go in to tournies to test and compete with the deck.
 
I normally like Fast decks, something that's usually attacking turn 2 and applys alot of pressure. In saying that though I don't like the deck to be to "Straight Forward" I like to have a deck that has the ability to be played out in more then 1 way (I went through a Jirachi phase) This playstyle mainly devloped in this format though. Last format I liked the slower lock decks. Vilegar and Sablock beacame the two decks I always played (I would always tech them and keep updating / changing them). I'm not sure why this change occured over formats. Last format to me it just felt like there was "More Time" for the slower lock deck's. I guess this was due to things like BTS, 1st turn rare candy e.t.c

As for deck building, I normally pick a deck at the start of a new format and build it and stick with it while I look around at other decks / deck ideas that I might want to build. I had Mewgar built 2 weeks before HGSS-On and I played that for awhile while I built up a good card pool of HGSS-On cards so I could make other decks. I mainly do this as I don't like to invest alot of money into pokemon if I can avoid it, I like to trade and build a deck like that.
 
Vulpix Yolk said:
I would say that I am a pretty safe player. It took me a while to figure this out, but if it is possible for a good opponent to do something, they are going to do it. I try to think of all of the possiblities, for instance, figuring out how many cards would they need to get something out of their active, evolve, and attach an energy or something along those lines. I sometimes take risks, but I try to run at least a couple numbers in my head, but a lot of the times I make risky decisions. For instance if I have a chance at a donk, on lets say a coin flip, and if I go that donk, I will have a cruddy set up the rest of the game, I am probably going to be going for the donk.

As for the speed/lock aspect of the game, I usually like Speed decks, but I can appreciate interesting locks, for instance, my old Rapidash lock, or something like FlyLock from a couple formats ago. For the most part I go straight for the throat with speed decks. Last format, almost every deck that I built was a speed stage 2 deck, 3 BTS, 4 Pokédrawer + and that jazz. This format I have been looking into Eel Zone and ZPST, simply because it is something that I can make a speedy list of. I tried playing google's, but was simply irritated that I couldn't get a T2 set up with it, so I stopped trying.

The other thing that I do a lot, and would almost say I specialize in, would be unexpected techs. I love playing a copy paste meta deck, and right when people think they know every card in my deck, I pull out some weird counter like Unown CURE or something. For instance, last year at State Championships, I was playing a Gyarados list, but I was playing 4 Night Teleporter, 2 Azelf and 4 Special Darks (this eventually became the norm, but whatever). I would do things like pretend that a Magikarp was prized, just to draw out an SP player's Power Spray, so that I could try to get an Uxie with Night Teleporter. It actually worked pretty well, I ended up taking third place at the tourney, probably would have gone farther if I would have been paired against one of the two DialgaChomps in top as opposed to the only LuxChomp. I like how quickly this turned into a rant, I miss the past :(

[/sand=Vulpix Yolk] -Celebi23
Click to expand...
I was hoping the conversation would change based on this post, but it didn't so I'll try to redirect it again. I gave this post Grains of Sand only for the bolded part of it. I'm calling this out not because I agree or disagree with it, but because it begs another question: at what point is is okay to abandon your playstyle to try to take the game in whatever way you can? For example, if you're a safe player, how bad does your opening have to be before you start discarding key resources off of Sage's Training, benching lone Oddish, etc? The classic example of this dilemma is best demonstrated by a card like Raichu. At what point do you abandon the consistency of Thunderbolt to try to go for the Iron Tail OHKO? How many prizes down do you have to be, and how bad does your or your opponent's setup have to be before you ditch your standard gameplan to desperately attempt five heads in a row?
 
Celebi23 said:
I was hoping the conversation would change based on this post, but it didn't so I'll try to redirect it again. I gave this post Grains of Sand only for the bolded part of it. I'm calling this out not because I agree or disagree with it, but because it begs another question: at what point is is okay to abandon your playstyle to try to take the game in whatever way you can? For example, if you're a safe player, how bad does your opening have to be before you start discarding key resources off of Sage's Training, benching lone Oddish, etc? The classic example of this dilemma is best demonstrated by a card like Raichu. At what point do you abandon the consistency of Thunderbolt to try to go for the Iron Tail OHKO? How many prizes down do you have to be, and how bad does your or your opponent's setup have to be before you ditch your standard gameplan to desperately attempt five heads in a row?
Click to expand...

So this is more regarding the tactical aspects of the game. Well, in the Raichu example, Iron Tail v Thunderbolt appears to be rather simple in coming to a conclusion. To do more damage with Iron Tail than Thunderbolt, you need 4 heads, and the chances of that are 1/16. So if you have worse than a 6% chance of winning with Thunderbolt, it makes sense to go for it. There is little difference between no chance and a 6% chance, so it appears that choice is rather simple.

The example you bolded, accepting a poor setup for a 50% chance to donk (which I am assuming means a victory because you KO the active and the opponent has no benched Pokemon), is more subjective. First, I think it would be worth considering the matchup between the two decks. If you do not have a favorable matchup, it makes sense to go for the donk, since you stand less than a 50% chance of winning the match otherwise. If you have a favorable matchup, it makes more sense to not risk the poor start going for the donk. A mirror match is already ~50%, so then one would want to take into account the skill and experience of the opposing player.

I think the most interesting tactical situation in the game is one of the examples you mentioned, something like Sage's Training. Picking two cards, but discarding 3. This situation is a lot like poker in some ways. You know what cards you have in your hand, and which cards are in play. You also have a general idea of which cards are in the deck, but not what order they are in. Say you play Sage's Training and need to take the Catcher for a KO, but there is also a Magnezone and Rare Candy you would like to get. Assuming the deck runs 3 Magnezone and 4 Rare Candy, odds are in your favor to take the Magnezone and hope to get another Rare Candy later.

The choice is simplified if you have a Junk Arm or Pokemon Collector in your hand, however assuming you do not have any other means to collect the cards other than drawing from your deck, it would probably be best to play the odds and take the Magnezone and hope for the Rare Candy later. Though keep in mind all this comes from somebody just rejoining the game, and has only watched videos of modern games thus far. In a game, a person's though process probably is not so clear. So take my advice with a grain of salt. :p
 
As far as straying away from my playstyle goes, it would have to be at a critical moment when I have a junk hand and something I don't want in the active spot is active, because of Catcher, this happens more often than I would hope. Once this happens, I generally tend to waste as many resources as needed until I get what I need. For example, in a recent game of my EelZone VS my friend's Reshiphlosion, I think turn 3 he Catcher'd my Eelektrik into the active spot and passed because he couldn't K.O. it that turn, even though I had a pretty good hand at the time, it wasn't what I needed. I forgot what I played, (though I know it was a hand refresh card) and I got 1 Electric Energy, 1 Thundurus and a few other good things, I already had an Electric Energy on Eelektrik and I benched my Thundurus, along with another Eelektrik, attached 2 Electric to Thundurus via Eelektik's ability (this was while my other Eelektrik was still in the active spot) and a few turns later due to that risky play, my friend scooped because I was destoying him and he couldn't do a thing.
 
"At what point do you abandon the consistency of Thunderbolt to try to go for the Iron Tail OHKO? "

I don't. This is the same reason I don't like SSU. I try to go for the donk if I can unless it means wasting resources.

I don't like to take chances.
 
^So even if your opponent has a Zekrom out with 3 energy and no damage on it, they have one prize left to your five, and they have no bench, you would opt to use Thunderbolt, basically scooping the game, instead of trying to win in the only way you can?
 
Celebi23 said:
^So even if your opponent has a Zekrom out with 3 energy and no damage on it, they have one prize left to your five, and they have no bench, you would opt to use Thunderbolt, basically scooping the game, instead of trying to win in the only way you can?
Click to expand...

Obviously in that situation anyone would probably use Iron Tail, but it would be hard to imagine actually getting 5 flips in a row. In order to be a good player, you need to know when to take risks, and when to go the safe, low risk low return route.
 
Celebi23 said:
^So even if your opponent has a Zekrom out with 3 energy and no damage on it, they have one prize left to your five, and they have no bench, you would opt to use Thunderbolt, basically scooping the game, instead of trying to win in the only way you can?
Click to expand...

Well I think most people would switch to Iron Tail of they were going to lose anyways.
 
That's the point I'm making. How deep of crap do you have to be in before you make that switch? Where do you draw the line? For example, what if they have two prizes out to your three, a Magnezone active, one card in their hand, and useless basics on their bench. You have 2 Raichu out and can keep both of them charged. Do you use Thunderbolt twice, allowing them to Magnetic Draw back into a huge and and most likely setup the attackers they need to win the game from there, or do you Iron Tail and hope for a miracle to stop them? Even though six is a huge number, if you only hit two heads, you haven't lost anything since it puts them in OHKO range next turn.
 
I don't think its possible to successfully identify that line where you start testing your luck rather than go take the consistent, sure-fire route. Every game is different and there are too many variables to take in consideration. How well they have been playing, how many energy they have used, how thin their deck is, what's in your hand/deck, etc. Decisions like these really can't be made from an upper, selective perspective, or at least not well. They have to be made in the moment as you experience them. Some players will tend to lean to a more radical and have more of a let's-see-what-happens kind of attitude, while some are all about playing sure-fire and safe– but even the safest players have to take chances and the most radical have to play smart sometimes.

But I guess in this scenario, knowing only what we know, I would probably use Thunderbolt. You are taking a chance, yes, but you are also eliminating the chance that you could get 0-1 heads with Irontail, which would have put you in a worse position than you started. When things get in that kind of a poor situation, yes, you have to hope for the best, but you have to play as safe as possible I think.

tldr; The line changes game to game, not player to player.

edit: typos
 
^I agree with most of that. It's a sad truth, but 99% of the time, decisions like that are made based on how flustered and desperate the player is. If they've been embarrassed by their deck crapping out or a couple misplays they are more likely to make stupid snap decisions. Most players anyway, I know I've been guilty of this before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top