Discussion What Makes A Card Ban-Worthy?

Latte1504

Latte1504

Aspiring Trainer
Member
There have been a handful of threads since Worlds discussing "Broken Cards." The most recent of these, the Gardevoir thread, arguably blew up because there was no metric to base this on. Let's try to fix that. I will edit this post when a new criterion comes up that seems reasonable. I have a few of my own to start with:

  1. Consistent Unparalleled Speed/Damage Output without drawbacks
  2. Too oppressive a hold (In terms of a lock or combo)
  3. Destroying a win condition
Please leave feedback and criticism.
 
Last edited:
Just to make matters confusing, though I rarely hear it used anymore, "broken" has been used in three major ways since the beginning of the game, and there is some overlap between them.

  1. A card that significantly upsets, if not destroys, the balance within the competitive metagame.
  2. A card that significantly damages the enjoyability of the game for the majority of players.
  3. A card that has been thoroughly broken in; meaning its uses are established and well understood. Usually, this also includes the card proving quite good.
...

No, I am not kidding. I didn't find out about definition three until I'd been playing the game for years at that point. Just to make it more annoying for me personally, while I'd never heard it before it was the definition that best fit other English usage for "broken". @_@

I did leave out criteria because I wanted to get a general direction before I tried to name specifics. Also, are we looking at only what has actually been banned? I'm guessing "yes" because it gets pretty subjective beyond that. As such, could someone with the time copy and paste the criteria given with each of the cards that have been banned before? I doubt anyone can find the old announcements for Sneasel and Slowking of Neo Genesis, but boy would that be a find!
 
Broken is a hard term because no one card is unbeatable but there are some that affect the enjoyment and balance of the game.

Garbodor affects deckbuilding and ruins choices. It punishes the player for using a card type. Because of this, you can't use Psychic weak Pokemon. It's too powerful because you can't control the pace in which you can play cards because you are forced to play them if your setup is poor or too slow. None of these things affect the Garbodor player. Garbodor is a broken card and based on your list above, it breaks one and three.

Gardevoir-GX is too self contained. It has a unlimited damage output of 30x, which is already overpowered but it counts energy on both Active Pokemon. It can use DCE AND Choice Band and has an Ability to accelerate Energy, pretty much making the Fairy cost a Colorless cost. You can't play a deck using three or more Energy, which removes a lot of deck choices. Gardevoir is the perfect card and can play around its worst matchups. It can even recycle resources. I played a Quad Talonflame deck based on removing Energy to win and when they use Twilight GX and put back in ten Energy cards, it took away my win condition. Just to make sure it wasn't my fringe deck, I tried Quad Sylveon, in which the same results happened, taking away my win con. Again, based on your list, Gardevoir-GX breaks one and four.

Volcanion is just too fast and powerful, having many tools available to it.

I personally believe a lot of these problems with "broken" cards is Professor Sycamore allowing access to new cards, on top of other draw support. There are other factors in what makes a card broken but for me, it's how the card interacts with the rest of the card pool and Gardevoir-GX doesn't interact well with the card pool is has poor future balance.
 
Do you mean "What guidelines does it seem TPCI uses" or "What guidelines do you THINK TPCI should use"?

Either way, I take issue with point 1. There are no cards in the game that have literally no drawback, except maybe alolan vulpix, but even that has the drawback of "You're not putting a tankier attacker into play". So when you say "No drawback", I assume you mean drawbacks that aren't strong enough to hamper its overall power level, which leads to the rule essentially being:

A card that is unparalleled in terms of speed/damage output.

Which means that any card that ends up being the best card of its type deserves to be banned, which is kind of silly. If you want to keep this rule about power level, it should be:

Any card that has an expected value of return that is so high that the metagame is overcentralized around the usage of that single card.

The fact that a card is the "Best" at something doesn't necessarily make it banworthy. Tapu Lele is so extremely powerful that literally every single deck in the game considers using it, but it doesn't centralize the meta-game, since it is equally useful in a wide variety of decks. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with it.
 
Cards being powerful doesn't mean its ban worthy. There will always be tier 1 meta decks and the meta will always affect deck building and prevent some options from being viable no matter what you ban. The important part is the ability for player agency to be able to find answers and deal with those powerful cards.

Trashalance - Players responded by building decks with less items and focusing and playing less items in game. Even then there are plenty of item heavy decks still in the meta such as Vika/Bulu, Volc, Metagross, and Gardevoir

Gardevoir GX - Yes this card is all around very good but its not unbeatable as shown by the several regional where other decks either won or also placed on top 8. Tactics such as sniping Ralts, Devolving with Espeon-EX, teching steel attackers to hit for weakness, special energy removal with Enhanced Hammer or Jirachi, soften up with a one prizer so you 2HKO with a favorable prize trades all help deal with the Gardevoir match up. And while Twilight GX does heavily counter losing by deck out or lack of energy it still is possible for gardevoir to lose that way (as opposed to literally impossible with Lysadre's Trump Card)

Volcanion - Its power is speed and damage potential but it is heavily dependent on being set up, needing a lot of resources, and its pokemon abilities. Running Garbotoxin or Aloan Muk seriously hampers its damage output. It's hit hard by Plea GX and Tapu Storm GX since they unset up the 3+ energy attackers (and you can run Tapu Fini in decks that run Rainbow Energy) and can lose to wars of attrition as it needs a steady stream of energy to supply Steam Up and switch cards to maintain attacking every turn (because all 3 fire attackers generally can't attack the following turn themselves)

And I believe the results for tournaments show that players are managing to deal with these cards as well. Multiple decks have made good showings at regionals that aren't the above three. And no one deck is single handling dominating every single tournament and top 8.
 
crystal_pidgeot said:
Gardevoir is the perfect card and can play around its worst matchups.
Click to expand...
Gardevoir is far from perfect. It is a stage 2, Garbotoxin shuts its energy acceleration making it really slow in those matchups, it's also weak against energy efficient attackers and it has a type weakness. It's really powerful, but there have been many cards that have been way more oppresive than Garde ever was. Metagross and Buzzwole outright beat it and Drampa Garb and Greninja are a 50/50.
Volcanion isn't too fast and powerful, and actually contradicts your point about 3 energy attackers being unplayable due to Gardevoir, which there are many more other 3 energy attackers that are not just viable, but are also part of the best decks in the format. If you're saying that it's too fast because of Kiawe, it's pretty much a dead card beyond the first turn. And a pretty weak play if you don't have another draw supporter available in turn 1 even.
 
I agree that until the recent ban of forest, and archeops, bans occurred because of a powerful combo that wasn’t intended to exist, for example, lysandre trump card worked well with vs seeker and shaymin, giving infinite resources to the player, at a incredible speed. I’d assume people are going to start using lusamine for lusamine which I don’t think was supposed to happen, but I don’t think it’ll get a ban because it doesn’t work at an incredible speed. Now the criteria has changed changed, and I think it now includes cards that create an archetype, that can entirely eliminate another archetype. For example, archeops relatively eliminated the raikou/eels deck.
 
RapidCancel said:
Gardevoir is far from perfect. It is a stage 2, Garbotoxin shuts its energy acceleration making it really slow in those matchups, it's also weak against energy efficient attackers and it has a type weakness.
Click to expand...

None of these things matter. Gardevoir isn't that crippled against Garb because of how strong the attack is and most decks that use Garb tend to be in Gardy's KO range. Arguably the hardest matchup for Gardy (out of all the current meta decks) is Golisopod/Garb because it bulky and attacks for a single energy but once they get that Field Blower, Gardy takes a dump on you because you lack any real way to KO them effectively. I don't think Weakness is a factor at this point.

It's really powerful, but there have been many cards that have been way more oppresive than Garde ever was. Metagross and Buzzwole outright beat it and Drampa Garb and Greninja are a 50/50.
Click to expand...

Gardevoir isn't actually that bad in these matchup. There isn't enough data to suggest Buzzwole auto wins the match. Greninja is 50/50 to everything is seems, but refer back to your point one.

Volcanion isn't too fast and powerful, and actually contradicts your point about 3 energy attackers being unplayable due to Gardevoir, which there are many more other 3 energy attackers that are not just viable, but are also part of the best decks in the format. If you're saying that it's too fast because of Kiawe, it's pretty much a dead card beyond the first turn. And a pretty weak play if you don't have another draw supporter available in turn 1 even.
Click to expand...

Volcanion-EX is like Charizard or Volcarona existing in a Stealth Rock heavy format. They are good enough (Charizard with the mega) to risk the 50% health loss switching in because they can sweep a game. If you avoid Gardevoir-GX in a tournament, you're that much more favored to win the event because of how explosive the deck is, which is why the deck still wins. They just got lucky and avoided a bad match.
 
@crystal_pidgeot Do you have an actual reason for wanting to ban Volcanion because literally every time you talk about it all you say is "It's too good" and that's not an actual explanation
 
CrownAxe said:
@crystal_pidgeot Do you have an actual reason for wanting to ban Volcanion because literally every time you talk about it all you say is "It's too good" and that's not an actual explanation
Click to expand...

I think Volcanion-EX's Ability should be a once per turn things. You shouldn't be able to use more than one Steam Up. I think Volcanion is Broken because you can use it up to four times a turn but I don't think it should be banned.
 
@crystal_pidgeot reminded me of another serious point of contention with broken cards... can there be more than one at a time? Do they all have to be equally broken?

Years ago, I came to the conclusion that "broken" cards are like mountains; they come in a range, and whether it's bigger or smaller than the others, when you're at the base of one it can hide others. In games that have more prolific ban lists, it is a bit easier to spot; Card X is a problem, and everyone uses it. Something about Card X keeps people from using Card Y or Card Z. Banning Card X means Card Y and Card Z finally start seeing play and causing problems. Maybe they aren't as bad as Card X, maybe they are just as bad, and maybe they are worse.
 
I am going to update the OP with everything but my response to @Otaku

I use the term ban-worthy over broken because of the reasons you've mentioned: the "Mountain" effect, the first 2 definitions of broken are very subjective, and is almost entirely irrelevant. Also, if we use broken literally, then almost every usable card would be broken.

@Xeynid: It really is a combination. I just want a set of usable metrics that we can use to judge how overpowered a card is. Also, when I say unparalleled, I mean that nothing can compete with the speed and amount of damage that a deck can put out.

Also, as a general not WE ARE NOT TRYING TO POINT OUT OVERPOWERED CARDS. We are just trying to create a set of guidelines to judge cards. Please stop mentioning specific examples of cards. It is mostly irrelevant to the discussion I am trying to have.
 
Otaku said:
@crystal_pidgeot reminded me of another serious point of contention with broken cards... can there be more than one at a time? Do they all have to be equally broken?

Years ago, I came to the conclusion that "broken" cards are like mountains; they come in a range, and whether it's bigger or smaller than the others, when you're at the base of one it can hide others. In games that have more prolific ban lists, it is a bit easier to spot; Card X is a problem, and everyone uses it. Something about Card X keeps people from using Card Y or Card Z. Banning Card X means Card Y and Card Z finally start seeing play and causing problems. Maybe they aren't as bad as Card X, maybe they are just as bad, and maybe they are worse.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, not all cards have to be the same level of broken. I think Professor Sycamore is broken for the same reason Pot of Greed and Morphing jar are broken. Giving too much explosive draw comes with a huge drawback to pace of play and resource management. Games like Yu-Gi-Oh and MtG punish the player for playing too many cards and overextending. If my opponent has a low hand size, I can do what I want without fear that they have something to hurt me. In Pokemon, you can play your hand down to zero and overextend because you have a draw seven.

There can be more than one broken card at a time. Right now, I believe those cards are Garbodor, Gardevoir-GX, Volcanion-EX and Professor Sycamore. If we ban the "broken" cards, something else will take their place. I think the goal now should be to make the sets weaker and balance for rotation. BW/XY designs are ruining S/M card design, like I said it would.
 
Don't think I can find the original announcement, but here is what multiple cites quoted as being the official announcement (or at least part of it) when Lysandre's Trump Card was banned.

As of June 15, 2015, Lysandre’s Trump Card (XY—Phantom Forces, 99/119 and 118/119) will be banned from all sanctioned Play! Pokémon tournaments in most of the world. (The ban will go into effect in Japan on June 20.) This card has created an undesirable play environment because it:

  • Eliminates one of your opponent’s victory conditions (running out of cards in your deck)
  • Allows repeated use of powerful Trainer cards
  • Allows drawing through your deck quickly with minimal repercussions
  • Extends the time of battles
All sanctioned tournaments will be affected by this change, including Pokémon National Championships occurring after June 15 (except in Japan) and the Pokémon World Championships in August.
Click to expand...

I could have sworn they gave more reasons, but at least this is a place to start. @Latte1504 is also correct that citing specific examples will almost certainly derail the discussion. Even though I am the one suggesting we look at what went into the cards actually banned, however, I will now caution us not to take them as the gospel truth. I use that religious (or at least religion inspired) term precisely because Nintendo is not God. Neither is Game Freak or The Pokémon Company or whomever else has a hand in card design, balancing the game, etc. As the banning of any card in Standard play tells us, they can make mistakes. Something well worth banning may not yet have been banned, and something not worth banning may already have been banned.

Looking at game mechanics can be another way for us to spot potential problems. If a card cause a seemingly balanced game mechanic to no longer be balanced, odds are there is a problem somewhere (if not in the obvious place).
 
Otaku said:
I could have sworn they gave more reasons, but at least this is a place to start. @Latte1504 is also correct that citing specific examples will almost certainly derail the discussion. Even though I am the one suggesting we look at what went into the cards actually banned, however, I will now caution us not to take them as the gospel truth.
Click to expand...
I fundamentally agree with you; almost every that has been banned fits under a category. I just don't think that looking to each banned card and putting each reason that it was banned is viable. After all, if a card does is extend the time it probably won't be banned :p

Also, new possible criterion: Overwhelming/Unbeatable Combo. Thoughts?
 
Latte1504 said:
I fundamentally agree with you; almost every that has been banned fits under a category. I just don't think that looking to each banned card and putting each reason that it was banned is viable. After all, if a card does is extend the time it probably won't be banned :p

Also, new possible criterion: Overwhelming/Unbeatable Combo. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think Overwhelming/Unbeatable Combo fits your number three. As a matter of fact, I would replace it with Overwhelming/Unbeatable Combo.
 
Based upon what I've gathered through the conversations here, I believe that everyone (feel free to disagree) is upset with how cards that are currently being used have unlimited potential. Gardevoir GX "technically" has no limit with it's damage output, along with Trashalanche using your opponent's decisions as a weapon, and Volcanion EX being fast and furious by turn two. But, everything (for the most part) is somewhat balanced. Volcanion EX isn't unbeatable, falling to multiple decks like (some may disagree) Greninja Break, Trashalanche (if based on an item engine), etc. So is Gardevoir GX, or Trashalanche (by playing conserving items), and every other deck in Pokémon.

What I think makes a deck "broken" (along with most of what everyone else mentioned), is how many bad matchups a deck has. Trashalanche is almost a 50-50 matchup with everything while Gardevoir GX is only weak to decks like Metagross GX, Garbodor/Golisopod GX, and Spread decks. Everything has its place, but the most efficient and popular decks are the most resistant to all other decks.

What Pokémon has also done though, is leave an element of surprise to some "unforeseen" decks. Who would of thought that Mega Audino EX would of won Worlds in 2016, or the uprising of Wailord EX decks a few years ago. Decks that are powerful now may not have as many weaknesses, but who knows, someone may find something or a new card is released that rebalances the metagmae. Banning cards is to remove a powerful combo or single card that upsets that balance which can't be reset by the release of cards later on that won't upset the balance even further.

I hope what I mentioned above makes sense and that this proves helpful. Let me know what you think, thanks!
 
Last edited:
Latte1504 said:
There have been a handful of threads since Worlds discussing "Broken Cards." The most recent of these, the Gardevoir thread, arguably blew up because there was no metric to base this on. Let's try to fix that. I will edit this post when a new criterion comes up that seems reasonable. I have a few of my own to start with:

  1. Consistent Unparalleled Speed/Damage Output without drawbacks
  2. Rule-Breaking error in text, which is not errated
  3. Too oppressive a hold (In terms of a lock or combo)
  4. Destroying a win condition
Please leave feedback and criticism.
Click to expand...

In respect to the current trend of TPCi moving towards higher Stage Pokemon, Espeon-EX then is broken
1. Unparalleled speed = devolving all Pokemon your opponent has for only 1 energy attachment
2. Rule breaking error in text = dont quote me, but Iirc Espeon EX is the only card that devolves every single Pokemon your opponent controls; every other Pokemon printed has only affected the active Pokemon
3. Oppressive lock/combo = easy way to deny/waste Rare Candy tactics and comboes with Po Town for more damage
4. Destroying a win condition = denying their opponent a chance to tank hits with higher stage Pokemon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top