Discussion What Makes A Card Ban-Worthy?

[Latte1504]

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

Like I said, we are not going to call out specific cards; however, I will clarify for you what I mean because you misinterpret what I said. Both 2 and 4 do not make sense. In 2, I mean an error in translation made a card too powerful, like with Slowking Neo Destiny. In 4, I mean literally making it so that a win condition is unviable for the whole format, like how Lysandre's Trump Card made deck out impossible. To argue with your 1, it takes at least 3 turns to set up, so you can easily play around it. And I guess 3 works, but for a combo that is dependent on how your opponent plays, I don't think it is ban-worthy.

 

[Duo]

While I understand that you want to avoid another heated argument about specific cards, I think it's impossible to discuss criteria for ban worthy cards without using examples.

That being said, I think FOGP brings up a 5th criteria that should be accounted for.

5. A card that can limit or control the design freedom of future cards in a certain archetype due to the potential for generating unforeseen or excessive advantage for such archetypes.

While we never have to worry about seeing FOGP in standard anymore, if that card were to remain in expanded, the design of future Grass Pokemon would either need to be stifled to accomodate for something as powerful as FOGP, or grass decks would just run rampant in expanded simply because they have a significant tool no one else has.

Just imagine if FOGP was still legal with the Venusaur/Shining Genesect deck floating around nowadays. Or before that, Golisopod GX in expanded - open Wimpod in active, Brigette for some more, FOGP into Golisopod GX on bench, attach energy, wimp out of active, switch into Golisopod GX, and deal 120 damage on your first turn (going second) of the game. Lurantis GX/Venusaur starts to look like a super viable deck if FOGP was still available.

Between banning all of the good Grass Pokemon and never designing anymore good Grass Pokemon, or just simply banning FOGP, simply banning FOGP was clearly the better decision. They simply cut it off at the root of the problem so no one ever has to worry about Grass Pokemon as a whole (get it, Grass Pokemon? Roots? You can punch me if you want).

The wording of my point can definitely be improved, but I think the general idea can be understood. FOGP made every Grass Evolution Pokemon better than it is simply by having that card available to them.

 

[Otaku]

Deingel has, unintentionally, reminded me of some of the traps people fall into when discussing this, but also that we will need a few examples; preferably, taken from cards that have actually been or currently are banned. A big danger when discussing topics like these are people blaming the wrong part of a combo.

Example: Card X and Card Y are problems, but primarily (maybe exclusively) because Card Z is in the cardpool. Unfortunately, most folks will focus on Card X or Card Y and ignore Card Z, especially if their own preferred decks need Card Z and/or they can't imagine the game without Card Z.​

I originally had this massive, massive pointing out how Espeon-EX doesn't fit the criteria. That's already been pointed out, but I think this does show that

1. Actual card examples are needed; preferably, we can use cards that are or at least were banned from competitive play at some point
2. "Rule-Breaking error in text, which is not errated" needs to be left off, or clarified as a historical practice. WotC hated errata; TPCi will actually do it. Also, I just noticed it should be "errata'd".

Oh, and @Deingel, please look up Ancient Technical Machine [Rock]. The short version is that Devolution tactics have never been that great in Pokémon, so the level demonstrated by Stone Generator, Miraculous Shine, etc. seems to be what it takes for it to really matter as an attack. Problems arise not from inexpensive Devolution of this type but from particular combos (and not the ones you listed).

 

[Latte1504]

Actual card examples are needed; preferably, we can use cards that are or at least were banned from competitive play at some point

I agree, but most of the time through this thread, people brought up specific cards to say they should be banned, not to support a reason for banning them. I ultimately just want people to work backwards: state a a criterion and then use a card to support it.

"Rule-Breaking error in text, which is not errated" needs to be left off, or clarified as a historical practice. WotC hated errata; TPCi will actually do it. Also, I just noticed it should be "errata'd".

Noted.