Discussion Would a sideboard work in Pokemon TCG?

[Maximinn]

A buddy of mine who's really into Magic has been talking to me a lot about sideboarding and it got me wondering why we don't have that in Pokemon. I know this topic has been discussed on here before but, as far as I can see, not for several years.

For those who don't know:

A sideboard is collection of 15 cards that players may bring to a tournament alongside their 60 card deck. After game 1 and game 2 in a best of 3 match, players may swap as many cards as they like between their deck and their sideboard on a 1 to 1 basis so long as the deck remains legal. Players must return to their original decklist between matches.

Would this feature work in Pokemon? It would certainly lessen the blow of a bad matchup or redundant tech cards (Opponent playing Night March? Swap all your head ringers for Enhanced Hammers etc) but would the fact that Pokemon has significantly better draw and search than Magic mean that being able swap your tech cards is too powerful? Would the fact that your opponent can do this too and might be swapping in techs for your techs keep it balanced? Would the sheer number of staple trainers that appear in almost every deck mean that you could essentially change deck entirely between games and, if so, is that a bad thing?

Personally, I think it would add a significant new layer of strategy trying to guess and second guess what your opponent is changing during sideboarding, as well as allowing people to play more varied decks since they need to worry less about struggling against a popular threat that may or may not appear. Bad matchups would still be bad, since if you got your meta predictions totally wrong you'd be losing game 1 in almost every match and would be under pressure to catch up, but they wouldn't be a complete disaster.

What do you think?

 

[Otaku]

What do you think?

That it is a terrible idea due to the differences between Pokémon and Magic: The Gathering.

Spoiler

I have not played MtG except to learn the most basic rules of the game, so clearly I am no expert there (okay, so I'm no expert anywhere =P). I did play Yu-Gi-Oh for several years and it also used a Side Board (though I believe it was called a "side deck" then). Just because it has overlapping game play mechanics with Pokémon and MtG, I'll mention I played both Duel Masters and Kaijudo and... was never very good at either, but if I slip up and use a term from DM/K instead of MtG, now you'll know why. ^^'

Here are some major differences to consider (I'll save details for later):

• Prize Cards/Needing something in play versus Life Points
• Bench/Active versus row of monsters
• Mana cards versus Energy cards
• Evolution versus Summoning Sickness
• Mana costs versus attack costs
• Mana costs versus Supporter usage
• Mana costs versus Stadium usage
• Mana cost versus Pokémon Tool limit (I think)
• Draw/search/recycling versus Draw/search/recycling
• Weakness versus ?

Probably more but this is a good start. My premise is that the many differences make Side Boards a very questionable move. Pokémon is about running TecH and metagaming, which come with a cost of either running minimal copies or eating up more deck space (respectively). The only real balancing aspect of many cards is that they are situational; does it really sound fun to have a format where everyone is siding three to four copies of Enhanced Hammer and Xerosic? Think of what happens with Supporters thanks to Battle Compressor and VS Seeker; just two to three copies of a Supporter in your Side Board can wreck a lot of decks, and not in the good "Makes the game more diverse and fair" kind of way but in the "Haw, you didn't play the most utilitarian deck in the game so now I'm gonna pound ya!" kind of way. XP

 

[bbninjas]

Personally I would not be an advocate for this. I enjoy the challenge of adding techs to improve matchups for a whole day, rather than each deck; I'd feel that could perhaps be too easily. Anyway, I know that any rogue deck I make would virtually fail in this type of format - they often have a hard counter but that counter is rarely used. I feel a format like this could decrease creativity in rogue decks.

yes, I recycled this from another thread.

 

[Yo-yos]

It seems like more rogue decks could flourish, some to most rogue decks, for the most part are hate decks, and if they can assign a 15 card side deck to counter a current tier 3-1 list, and it could happen, and it will flip the tier over to the decks that are winning are overly consistent or they are super teched out and are 100% made to shut you and every deck down. So basically back to when we had trump card.

I like our current format.

 

[DevinTheWelf]

GOD NO. I can't POSSIBLY explain how bad this would be for Pokemon. Because weakness is such a core part of the game, a side board would 100% ruin competitive play and make the game as stale as a few other fallen TCG's (cough cough YU-GI-OH).

Let me try to give an example. I'm playing Vespiquen. I see my opponent is playing M Manectric EX, I tech in 2 Maxie and 2 Gallade (break though). Because the deck already runs everything it needs to set up Maxie (battle comp, ultra ball, ect.) I have essentially auto own my match up. Lets say I play against Giratina/Toad. I just cram as many Energy Hammer and Xerosic as I possible can into my deck and auto win that match up too. Let's say I play against Mega Ray. I put in 4 Parallel City and auto win the match up.

And with all those examples, that's only 12 cards out of the 15 OP suggested. A side board would not be healthy for Pokemon.

 

[Yo-yos]

GOD NO. I can't POSSIBLY explain how bad this would be for Pokemon. Because weakness is such a core part of the game, a side board would 100% ruin competitive play and make the game as stale as a few other fallen TCG's (cough cough YU-GI-OH).

Let me try to give an example. I'm playing Vespiquen. I see my opponent is playing M Manectric EX, I tech in 2 Maxie and 2 Gallade (break though). Because the deck already runs everything it needs to set up Maxie (battle comp, ultra ball, ect.) I have essentially auto own my match up. Lets say I play against Giratina/Toad. I just cram as many Energy Hammer and Xerosic as I possible can into my deck and auto win that match up too. Let's say I play against Mega Ray. I put in 4 Parallel City and auto win the match up.

And with all those examples, that's only 12 cards out of the 15 OP suggested. A side board would not be healthy for Pokemon.

2 things, 1. yugioh is much more popular then pokemon, and 2. as I stated above every deck you think of currently would never exist in a side deck format, just think of the days of trump cards and seismetoad and that will become the kind of format it will be. Thats right, every deck you think is currently playable will not be playable, not even toad tina.

 

[DevinTheWelf]

2 things, 1. yugioh is much more popular then pokemon, and 2. as I stated above every deck you think of currently would never exist in a side deck format, just think of the days of trump cards and seismetoad and that will become the kind of format it will be. Thats right, every deck you think is currently playable will not be playable, not even toad tina.

1. At every card shop I've been to for various City Championships, League Challenges, and Leagues in general, Magic and Pokemon make up most of the stores sales and yu-gi-oh is either not there entirely, or not focused on. 2. Because side boards are not a thing in Pokemon, the only things we can base them on are our current meta decks. If you wanna go ahead and test with side boards to see how the meta would function then go ahead, but I don't know how it relates to the "days of trump card and toad".

 

[Maximinn]

GOD NO. I can't POSSIBLY explain how bad this would be for Pokemon. Because weakness is such a core part of the game, a side board would 100% ruin competitive play and make the game as stale as a few other fallen TCG's (cough cough YU-GI-OH).

Let me try to give an example. I'm playing Vespiquen. I see my opponent is playing M Manectric EX, I tech in 2 Maxie and 2 Gallade (break though). Because the deck already runs everything it needs to set up Maxie (battle comp, ultra ball, ect.) I have essentially auto own my match up. Lets say I play against Giratina/Toad. I just cram as many Energy Hammer and Xerosic as I possible can into my deck and auto win that match up too. Let's say I play against Mega Ray. I put in 4 Parallel City and auto win the match up.

And with all those examples, that's only 12 cards out of the 15 OP suggested. A side board would not be healthy for Pokemon.

The other thing to remember is that, while you're sideboarding in your Gallade or your Hammers to auto win the matchup, your opponent is sideboarding too. They'll know the counters to their own deck and will be ready to counter your counters. Maybe they'll put in more weakness policies, or an attacker that'll oneshot your Gallade, or a Ninetails line to stop your Parallel Cities.

I agree that single cards can wreck strategies in Pokemon more than they do in Magic. Maybe it would need a smaller sideboard of, say, 5 cards rather than the full 15.

 

[DevinTheWelf]

The other thing to remember is that, while you're sideboarding in your Gallade or your Hammers to auto win the matchup, your opponent is sideboarding too. They'll know the counters to their own deck and will be ready to counter your counters. Maybe they'll put in more weakness policies, or an attacker that'll oneshot your Gallade, or a Ninetails line to stop your Parallel Cities.

I agree that single cards can wreck strategies in Pokemon more than they do in Magic. Maybe it would need a smaller sideboard of, say, 5 cards rather than the full 15.

But that's where the game starts to unravel. The beauty of Pokemon is that you're given such a tight amount of space to take on the world. You have to go in with the 60 cards that you think will win most if not all of your matches. I don't think the game would be nearly as fun if it became "I counter your counter, well now I counter YOUR counter". The game is just healthier without it, ya know?

And yeah, 5 cards would probably be a more manageable amount that won't heavily influence the game, but I still think the 5 spaces would consist of Enhanced Hammers/Crushing Hammers, which in a match up against a deck that runs souly on Special Energy would not be able to side board anything to really stop that.

 

[Otaku]

Just because I tend to be heavy on Theorymon and short on actual experience let me say that I would love for people to test this. Also remember that while even a little bit of data can be useful, there is a big difference between someone testing one deck a dozen times against whomever they can face and a studious effort involving a large group of players, testing when the game has hit a relatively stable point (usually between set blocks), testing all established viable decks, most if not all formerly viable decks still in the card pool and hypothetically viable decks because annoying how it is... yeah a Side Board might shake things up a lot.

It is a tremendous labor!

The other thing to remember is that, while you're sideboarding in your Gallade or your Hammers to auto win the matchup, your opponent is sideboarding too.

While this is true, not all "counters" are equal. The risk versus reward factor is not only in play, but so is an ill-defined game of janken (Rock-Paper-Scissors). Hypothetically the best players will be able to "read" their opponent's and/or strategically predict what will be sided in and out but far too often, we are trading one form of luck for another. Plus seriously, risk versus reward; I suspect the decks that are going to benefit most are the ones that already are on or at least near the top and that just need the most simple, lowest skill requiring counters to run and use well.

 

[Yo-yos]

I don't theorymon, I know how people build decks and here's how it happens, and here's 100% how it pans out. If people/anyone in the game found out that there was someone, and there always is this someone, who has the cheapest way to win a tournament, and it's super successful most of the time that is what people will play, even if they absolutely hate it, that is what people will play. And if you find a way to sideboard a deck that isn't good or isn't even currently playable due to certain "high volume of matchups", and in most games it usually is 4-5 cards that switch that matchup around entirely, I have an extra 10 cards, the world is my oyster to turn this deck into the deck that swings every matchup into my favor. And the only deck that will beat it is a deck that is doing the same thing but making the deck substantially more consistent instead. It will shut out a lot of decks from seeing top play and eventually only 2 decks will be considered playable in any format until pokemon bans side decks. This isn't theory, this is 100% based off of what has happened in the past, 2010-2011 format, winter 2014 - spring regionals 2015 (exeggutor), and the tournament series in between. It's not even cute to pretend to think that this hasn't or has happened before, even though it has been the number 1 reason people choose decks, to win.

It would be, then on pokemon's side to try and balance it out. I have these kinds of conversations with my friend that plays magic. His thoughts are that there is to many broken cards in pokemon that could never exist or work in magic based on tournament structure in which he always includes side boarding as an ethical point to how the whole tournament structure would work.

 

[bbninjas]

As I started before, I think that sideboards destroy most rogues. There is generally some major weaknesses (both literally and figuratively) that a rogue deck has. An old one of mine was Float Stone + Toad, a well as Garbodor. The Wailord-EX deck that won Nationals would have failed under the idea of sideboards, because a single Bunnelby AT would lose them the game.

 

[DevinTheWelf]

I don't theorymon, I know how people build decks and here's how it happens, and here's 100% how it pans out.

For a subject that has not been tested at all, you can't possibly say "this is 100% how it would happen" and expect to be taken seriously, especially when comparing the game to Magic. Just because they're both card games does not mean they're similar enough to make such a statement. Due to the way Pokemon handles weakness and the current way special energies play a part in our meta, being able to switch out cards on a whim would lead to the exact same kinds of decks, with just disruption/type counters for other types of cads that pose a threat.

 

[Blui]

I would be willing to give sideboarding a try in Pokemon. It may be a little sketchy at first but over time it would iron out and certain boarding strategies would become expected and predictable.

That said, the way the game is currently being approached does not lend itself well to sideboarding. Everything is so polarised and there is barely anything that fits some kind of weird niche, an example of these niche cards in MtG would be Aven Mindcensor or Bojuka Bog. During RS or DP sideboarding may have been perfect, the formats were far less swingy and there was a lot of variety between the cards.

"I counter your counter, well now I counter YOUR counter"

Honestly, I love the sound of that because it's a form of interaction. You're no longer playing against what may as well be a computer, you're playing against someone who has needs and a game plan, and you can try to take that game plan out while they try to do that to you. Sounds fun.

 

[Otaku]

Honestly, I love the sound of that because it's a form of interaction. You're no longer playing against what may as well be a computer, you're playing against someone who has needs and a game plan, and you can try to take that game plan out while they try to do that to you. Sounds fun.

That actually sounds like playing a computer to me. The difference is you seeing playing such cards as taking skill, I see it as "Opponent plays card X. Card Y counters Card X. I use Card Y to counter Card X." In a lot of the Yu-Gi-Oh TCG based video games I played, the computer wouldn't use its Side Deck (a.k.a. the Side Board) but YGO isn't exactly balanced so games still had a lot of such "counters". It meant an incredibly small percentage of the card pool was worth playing and it made the game feel stale because even if there were a lot of decks, they all played in a similar manner and were almost robot. If you had the needed counter and timed it right, you won. If not, you lost.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

This is something I have been wanting in the game for a long time now (as well as best of 3). You can't have best of 3 game and not get the players a chance at counter play. In fighting games, you have a chance to counter pick a character to turn your bad matchup into a more favorable one by picking a different character. I've seen games where players didn't even play the second game because their matchup was so bad that they didn't even play it. This should never happen if players are given the chance of counter play.

If players are given the option at a 10-15 card side deck, games are much more entertaining - as well as skillful. Cards like Marowak Break could sit in a side deck (since it functions as a side deck card) rather than taking up deck space and making list inconsistent. I'm tired of playing and watching games where we auto lose to a match because when we could just tech in and out card of our side deck. If the players don't want this, they they are the reason the game can't grow.

But that's where the game starts to unravel. The beauty of Pokemon is that you're given such a tight amount of space to take on the world. You have to go in with the 60 cards that you think will win most if not all of your matches. I don't think the game would be nearly as fun if it became "I counter your counter, well now I counter YOUR counter". The game is just healthier without it, ya know?

And yeah, 5 cards would probably be a more manageable amount that won't heavily influence the game, but I still think the 5 spaces would consist of Enhanced Hammers/Crushing Hammers, which in a match up against a deck that runs souly on Special Energy would not be able to side board anything to really stop that.

Well, thats the point of a side deck. Why should a player who gets super lucky with night march and wins games deserve the win? All I do is side in a few Pyroar and ruin what would be my bad matchup. Side decks encourage good deck building and deck choice. Why should I lose to a player who can get luck when I made my deck the 'right' way (subjective, I know).

A game of counters is a good one. You can't counter everything and side decks only serve as a way to fix your bad matchups. You put cards in your side deck you think will help. If someone wants to use their side deck for hammers and such, then let them because your opponent could just trainer lock you in return. E.Hammer is a perfect side deck card IMO. The point is to have more options since you can't know what is being played. A player should never lose a best of 3 just because of match up.

As I started before, I think that sideboards destroy most rogues. There is generally some major weaknesses (both literally and figuratively) that a rogue deck has. An old one of mine was Float Stone + Toad, a well as Garbodor. The Wailord-EX deck that won Nationals would have failed under the idea of sideboards, because a single Bunnelby AT would lose them the game.

Why would rogues need to be safe? Rogues still operate with the unknown factor. Most players won't side for them anyway unless the concept ruins their build. Also, Bunnelby wasn't even on the radar because the deck that won was never used i.e. no need to use the tech but now if side decks are a thing, the Wailord-EX players need to prepare a tech for Bunnelby, or lose. Adapt or die.

The problem with Pokemon vs other card games in concepts in Pokemon are often WAY too safe. Side decks would destroy that idea and make the game more skill based.

 

[Otaku]

This is something I have been wanting in the game for a long time now (as well as best of 3). You can't have best of 3 game and not get the players a chance at counter play. In fighting games, you have a chance to counter pick a character to turn your bad matchup into a more favorable one by picking a different character. I've seen games where players didn't even play the second game because their matchup was so bad that they didn't even play it. This should never happen if players are given the chance of counter play.

Tournament fighting games* may be a good comparison... but the Side Board isn't the same as being allowed to switch characters. That's is flat out having multiple decks at your disposal (and that I might be able to get behind, though it ups the barrier to entry). The tournament fighter equivalent of a Side Board would require customizable characters, and the ability to tweak their stats/move sets X amount between... yeah that is where this breaks down a bit again: the competitive tournament fighters. The kinds of things I see in the finals are both players select a guy, go for best two out of three KOs, whoever gets that has one win, and the entire round is at least best two of three wins (sometimes more).

If anything, I think of a Sideboard as a "counter" mechanic, where "counters" are a specific kind of in game special move. In some games these work well; either everyone can use them and it is just a matter of knowing what trumps what (Killer Instinct Combo Breakers, at least back in the day). In other games again everyone can use them but its uses something like energy from a "Super Move" gauge (α counters from the Street Fighter α series). In others it is quite simple as everyone can try to counter but it only blocks a single hit (Street Fighter III and parries). Then there are games where only certain characters have counters, usually as one of their Special Movies (I think at one time either Virtua Fighter or Tekken did this, but if so its been a long time).

All of these can work when done well, but the Pokémon TCG is not the games where it is done well. It is the games where it is horribly broken as people just take a top tier fighter and your option is to spam whatever attacks are the hardest to counter and your character is mostly pointless: you aren't using any supers, specials or even most standard attacks because you'll be "countered" into oblivion if you do. =P

TL;DR: Otaku used to play a lot of tournament fighters but now he's horribly out of date! XP It isn't a bad comparison but it isn't perfect. Given how Pokémon works though, instead of just allowing people to play a side deck so that their one deck can basically rule them all, what if you just allowed players two totally separate decks? If Deck A + Deck B = 100% Favorable metagame coverage, that's a problem with the game. Same if it gets to a point where Deck A and Deck B are both the same deck, but with different TecH or similar mild tweaks. Just a thought though.

*This just means games like Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, etc. While I always just called them "Fighting Games", apparently that term is supposed to include things like beat'em ups and the like.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

Tournament fighting games* may be a good comparison... but the Side Board isn't the same as being allowed to switch characters. That's is flat out having multiple decks at your disposal (and that I might be able to get behind, though it ups the barrier to entry). The tournament fighter equivalent of a Side Board would require customizable characters, and the ability to tweak their stats/move sets X amount between... yeah that is where this breaks down a bit again: the competitive tournament fighters. The kinds of things I see in the finals are both players select a guy, go for best two out of three KOs, whoever gets that has one win, and the entire round is at least best two of three wins (sometimes more).

Well I made that comparison to show why counter play is healthy for competitive play. A side deck is giving players more options for that match up if they have the right cards to do so. The way it works in fighters is both players play their first character, then whoever loses can pick a new character if they want, the winner remains the character they won with. Counter play is good for matchup issues if they come up.

If anything, I think of a Sideboard as a "counter" mechanic, where "counters" are a specific kind of in game special move. In some games these work well; either everyone can use them and it is just a matter of knowing what trumps what (Killer Instinct Combo Breakers, at least back in the day). In other games again everyone can use them but its uses something like energy from a "Super Move" gauge (α counters from the Street Fighter α series). In others it is quite simple as everyone can try to counter but it only blocks a single hit (Street Fighter III and parries). Then there are games where only certain characters have counters, usually as one of their Special Movies (I think at one time either Virtua Fighter or Tekken did this, but if so its been a long time).

Yeah, I agree with that but these gaming communities have rules in place to be used in tournaments, which normally is the winner stay and loser counter picks.

All of these can work when done well, but the Pokémon TCG is not the games where it is done well. It is the games where it is horribly broken as people just take a top tier fighter and your option is to spam whatever attacks are the hardest to counter and your character is mostly pointless: you aren't using any supers, specials or even most standard attacks because you'll be "countered" into oblivion if you do. =P

This is why counter play is important through side decks. A player just wont be able to show up to a tournament and expect to win games because a player can just side in pyroar and stop them. Same goes for a lot of other deck. While some cards are underpowered in a main deck, they gain new life in a side deck for specific matchups. Yeah, Pokemon TCG lacks things like frame data and spacing but the game has other things it does well.

TL;DR:

Otaku used to play a lot of tournament fighters but now he's horribly out of date! XP It isn't a bad comparison but it isn't perfect. Given how Pokémon works though, instead of just allowing people to play a side deck so that their one deck can basically rule them all, what if you just allowed players two totally separate decks? If Deck A + Deck B = 100% Favorable metagame coverage, that's a problem with the game. Same if it gets to a point where Deck A and Deck B are both the same deck, but with different TecH or similar mild tweaks. Just a thought though.

Well, the comment was to show why counter play is important competitive play. The Pokemon TCG has no counter play. You have to waste deck space to make a tech for a deck you may not even come up against. This is bad design for a competitive game where money is involved. Best of 3 was a step in the right direction. The next step in the right direction are side decks. Again this is something I would like to test but I can say for sure it will change the game for the better.

*This just means games like Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, etc. While I always just called them "Fighting Games", apparently that term is supposed to include things like beat'em ups and the like.

Well, beat'em ups are their own thing now.

 

[Otaku]

Well, beat'em ups are their own thing now.

More like the definition has changed on me. Again. ¬_¬ "Fighting games" were what I referred to as "tournament fighting games" until a few years ago when reading up on the matter and now... yeah, looks like its back to that. S'what I get for being overly technical.

The Pokemon TCG has no counter play. You have to waste deck space to make a tech for a deck you may not even come up against.

You won't convince me by exaggerating to the point statements are blatantly false. The Pokémon TCG does indeed have counter player: metagaming and TecH. Just because you have to use space in your deck for match-ups that may not happen doesn't mean there is no counter play. After all, you use space in your Side Board preparing to counter decks or strategies that you may actually never face. It just that (of course) deck space is far more valuable.

I certainly understand that you believe Side Boards will improve things but you aren't convincing me of that. I've tried to explain why so you can try to explain why it should help. Why should having more cards available to a player during best two of three play make things more balanced? So far all the arguments at best cut both ways. Lesser played decks can include more counters to deal with the established top decks... but the established top decks can also include counters to deal with each other and likely still have space to deal with the most serious threats of the lesser decks. For example:

This is why counter play is important through side decks. A player just wont be able to show up to a tournament and expect to win games because a player can just side in pyroar and stop them.

I was talking about how an unbalanced counter system makes a fighting game worse because it causes combat to degenerate. Instead of more variety and skill, you get less because its "Top players run super counter guy!" while everyone else runs "That one guy who can counter counter guy!" or something to that effect. Now if you think Side Boarding Pyroar will work... why are players not going to take some Side Board space for an extra Hex Maniac or their own Evolution? Not to counter Pyroar (or at least not to only counter Pyroar) but in general. You're adding however many slots for stuff that didn't quite make the list.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

More like the definition has changed on me. Again. ¬_¬ "Fighting games" were what I referred to as "tournament fighting games" until a few years ago when reading up on the matter and now... yeah, looks like its back to that. S'what I get for being overly technical.

You won't convince me by exaggerating to the point statements are blatantly false. The Pokémon TCG does indeed have counter player: metagaming and TecH. Just because you have to use space in your deck for match-ups that may not happen doesn't mean there is no counter play. After all, you use space in your Side Board preparing to counter decks or strategies that you may actually never face. It just that (of course) deck space is far more valuable.

Well, I don't consider a meta to be counter play. Having knowledge of the meta is important to that counter play but it doesn't really do you any good. While a tech can be consider counter play, its not what a true counter play is. I consider techs a waste of deck space because you have to cut consistency just to prepare for a match up a little bit, when you can just have a side deck. With a side deck, you don't waste deck spaces and can play your deck the way its meant to be played. The purpose of a side deck is so you don't have to use your main deck space for match ups.

I certainly understand that you believe Side Boards will improve things but you aren't convincing me of that. I've tried to explain why so you can try to explain why it should help. Why should having more cards available to a player during best two of three play make things more balanced? So far all the arguments at best cut both ways. Lesser played decks can include more counters to deal with the established top decks... but the established top decks can also include counters to deal with each other and likely still have space to deal with the most serious threats of the lesser decks. For example:

Having more options makes the game more competitive. In a tournament, you have no options against a deck like Night March. As it stands now, you have to have a tech to beat it but for those other decks that do, your only two options are to either sign the match slip or hope your opponent doesn't draw the right cards and you can win. This is not the right way to go about this. I would call this unbalance. Even if I teched in pyroar into a deck, I still need to make room for like 12 cards at most, which is less cards for my decks strat. Side decks balance the game because players just can't go Rambo with their deck choices and expect easy matches.

I was talking about how an unbalanced counter system makes a fighting game worse because it causes combat to degenerate. Instead of more variety and skill, you get less because its "Top players run super counter guy!" while everyone else runs "That one guy who can counter counter guy!" or something to that effect. Now if you think Side Boarding Pyroar will work... why are players not going to take some Side Board space for an extra Hex Maniac or their own Evolution? Not to counter Pyroar (or at least not to only counter Pyroar) but in general. You're adding however many slots for stuff that didn't quite make the list.

Well, good fighters have systems that balance it. this is why fighters now have meter for using things like this now and if something is broken, they just patch it out and re-balance it. The problem with Pokemon is you can't patch cards and the next set may not address these problems (see Mewtwo EX) for some time. This is why rules are crafted and ban list are made because its an attempt to remove toxic concepts from the game. On the player level, we can use techs to help that but the more tech you have in your deck, the less deck space you have for things your deck needs. This is why side decks are important because it gives players a chance defend themselves, since a lot of other cards gain usefulness through side deck.

Well, this is up to the players. If that player wants more Hex maniac in the side deck or hammers, then let them have them. There are a ton of cards that dont make the list but thats because of techs, which can now go to the side deck. I use pyroar as an example of a card thats perfect for a side deck, rather than main decking it. If a player wants to use their 15 card side deck for pyroar, let them. I'm a little more conservative with my siding options though.