Discussion Would a sideboard work in Pokemon TCG?

[Otaku]

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 will refer you to this article. If you disagree with it, so be it; Obsol33t (a.k.a. bondiborg) may not have been the greatest of the old guard, but he knew what he was talking about then and I believe it still applies today... or rather should still apply today, however people are terrible about expanding the usage of terms even when doing so undermines the purpose of said term.

I would argue that if you want your deck to be played the way it was "meant to" and the deck itself is sound except that the best cards are unduly powerful to the point of being unbalanced, that would be an issue with game design and make me less inclined to believe that a Side Board is the answer. The art of TecH has long been a hallmark of Pokémon, to the point the term has migrated elsewhere (though for all I know that too has faded into the mists of inconsequential TCG history). This is why I had to start spelling "TecH" funny: people have turned it into little more than a synonym for "add" or "counter" or pretty much anything. I might as well say I need to Smurf my deck. I don't understand how you're really using it; sometimes it sounds close to how I understand it but other times it sounds quite different.

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'm not sure what you mean by "making the game more competitive": are we talking from a marketing stand point? Players being more competitive with each other seems to be a rather separate thing; I've seen people be rather cutthroat in monotonous formats as well as diverse. Otherwise having more appropriate options does indeed improve game balance but you can't use that to support arguing for Side Board without giving credible evidence that a Side Board will result a more diverse and balanced environment... especially when the person whom you are trying to convince has made it clear he believes the opposite, that adding a Side Board will lessen deck diversity and game balance.

Night March is a strong deck but by no means the most difficult to face down. Multiple decks can beat Night March; while it is a deck built around mostly single Prize Pokémon that with the proper set-up will quickly ramp up to be able to OHKO a Basic Pokémon-EX, the attackers are all glass cannons and their Special Energy cards are quite vulnerable. The deck also needs Items and Abilities to at least set-up, and usually contain multiple small, Pokémon-EX. Just about everything in the deck should be in OHKO range.

If what you are running can't beat Night March and thus isn't tournament viable because of it, question whether it can hang with the competitive metagame at all. Consider that perhaps the general issues with the game that a Side Board will not solve (if anything will likely make worse) such as pacing, cards that do too much for too little, the Weakness mechanic, the Prizes mechanic, etc. might be the real issue.

I also ask again that you be careful because your examples aren't making things more clear but less. Even "tech" without the capitalization to indicate my older definition still shouldn't involve 12 cards! That's changing your deck's structure. Even a 2-2 line of Pyroar (FLF) is pushing the limits of tech and TecH. Plus it is just a really bad solution for the problem. Try adding in

• more fast, single Prize attackers you quickly set-up and afford to trade
• spread attackers to take out multiple of your opponent's Pokémon at once
• counters for Items because the deck needs to use them heavily to set-up
• counters for Abilities because most builds also need those to set-up, some for their main attacker (Mew-EX)
• Jirachi (XY: Black Star Promo XY67)

You do not need all of these. A Hex Maniac or two that you can drop first or second turn so that they can't Shaymin-EX (ROS) for Setup or later so that Mew-EX is a dead card. Silent Lab also can work wonders. I don't like Seismitoad-EX and don't use it myself but it does allow fast, early game Item lock without needing a lot most decks don't already have. Good spread usually is deck dependent but if something is available to your deck, consider it; Landobats is barely hanging in there as a competitive deck but unless I get bad draws, Night March isn't overly intimidating because even when they can OHKO Landorus-EX, I can set-up for multi-turn KOs myself and make-up the Prize difference. The new promo Jirachi was basically made to counter most of the dominant, Special Energy reliant metagame. Edit: And most will serve double or triple duty because they work against a lot more than Night March!

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.

You can't just assert your premise and count that as support, even if you also identify a real problem. Edit: If this is not what you think you are doing, then I'm really, really lost. Seriously, please rephrase, probably without the Fighting Game or Pyroar or Night March stuff, possibly with the deck(s) you think Side Boarding will save. I read this quick and yeah, it sounds condescending but from what I can tell it is what you are doing and I can't think of a more polite way to phrase it.

I suggest dropping the analogy because it totally falls apart here: almost everything you mention actually could be considered analogous to a "patch", more specifically the kind that don't fix a problem but just mask it. I'm not sure if you've mentioned any truly toxic cards yet in the ones that bother you. They usually aren't the most blatant examples because frankly its the support more than the attackers. You take out our top attackers right now and the next best just step up and the majority of the card pool still goes to waste.

A major flaw in your argument is that you point out Side Boards would externalize TecH and slightly more substantial counter plays but in actuality, they wouldn't. You have to side cards out before you can side them in so your core deck will still have to be at least a few cards shy of 60. A sideboard allows you to have what amounts to variable "TecH" in a deck. It also allows some decks to dramatically shift focus because you can find two decks that are basically 15 cards apart. For example, you keep bringing up Night March... while neither build would be optimal I'm betting you can come up with a list for Night March and a list for Vespiquen (XY: Ancient Origins 10/98) and Flareon (BW: Plasma Freeze 12/116) that is 15 cards appart. It would allow players access to Night March or Vespiquen/Flareon or Night Marc/Vespiquen or Flareon/Night March.

Then there is just the fact that the reason decks are so crowded is that there are a lot of great cards. You give people 15 extra slots for rotating TecH or even just alternate full playsets of goodies and the best decks? They'll get better. Even if the weaker decks improve more than the stronger decks, I doubt it would be enough to level the playing field as far as I cab tell.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

I will refer you to this article. If you disagree with it, so be it; Obsol33t (a.k.a. bondiborg) may not have been the greatest of the old guard, but he knew what he was talking about then and I believe it still applies today... or rather should still apply today, however people are terrible about expanding the usage of terms even when doing so undermines the purpose of said term.

I would argue that if you want your deck to be played the way it was "meant to" and the deck itself is sound except that the best cards are unduly powerful to the point of being unbalanced, that would be an issue with game design and make me less inclined to believe that a Side Board is the answer. The art of TecH has long been a hallmark of Pokémon, to the point the term has migrated elsewhere (though for all I know that too has faded into the mists of inconsequential TCG history). This is why I had to start spelling "TecH" funny: people have turned it into little more than a synonym for "add" or "counter" or pretty much anything. I might as well say I need to Smurf my deck. I don't understand how you're really using it; sometimes it sounds close to how I understand it but other times it sounds quite different.

Well, I'm using tech the same way everyone else is and that is a counter or something for a specific match up. The key is to have better card design but the game is now at a point to where at times match up through typing doesn't even matter anymore but for decks like Night March, which has no bad match up would be a deck I would side against since my only option is hope they don't get the cards. It turns match ups like that into something winnable assuming I have the right cards in the side deck.

I'm not sure what you mean by "making the game more competitive": are we talking from a marketing stand point? Players being more competitive with each other seems to be a rather separate thing; I've seen people be rather cutthroat in monotonous formats as well as diverse. Otherwise having more appropriate options does indeed improve game balance but you can't use that to support arguing for Side Board without giving credible evidence that a Side Board will result a more diverse and balanced environment... especially when the person whom you are trying to convince has made it clear he believes the opposite, that adding a Side Board will lessen deck diversity and game balance.

Having more options just makes the game more competitive by default. In playing yugioh for so long, if that game didn't have a side deck, decks would be more broken than they already are. Side decks give players option to deal with those threats. Night March won't be winning if players could side in something to deal with it. You need to show me how it is bad. I believe decks with overpowered strategies ruin the meta since there are little options at dealing with them in a 60 card deck. With a side deck, we can have better deck builds and decks like Night March won't even be a competitive concept.

Night March is a strong deck but by no means the most difficult to face down. Multiple decks can beat Night March; while it is a deck built around mostly single Prize Pokémon that with the proper set-up will quickly ramp up to be able to OHKO a Basic Pokémon-EX, the attackers are all glass cannons and their Special Energy cards are quite vulnerable. The deck also needs Items and Abilities to at least set-up, and usually contain multiple small, Pokémon-EX. Just about everything in the deck should be in OHKO range.

A large part of beating Night March is hoping they don't hit the right cards because what do you do back if they get turn 1 180 damage on you. Sure all their attackers have small HP but what does non-lando EX decks do back? You're trading 2 prizes for 1.

If what you are running can't beat Night March and thus isn't tournament viable because of it, question whether it can hang with the competitive metagame at all. Consider that perhaps the general issues with the game that a Side Board will not solve (if anything will likely make worse) such as pacing, cards that do too much for too little, the Weakness mechanic, the Prizes mechanic, etc. might be the real issue.

Its not a matter of if my deck is viable or not. My decks do well against the meta but Night march doesn't care what it is up against. EX decks are at a disadvantage unless the opponent draws dead. Night March against other decks not EX heavy do better because of the prize trade but the fact there are no options at stoping the strategy. If something like Soul Release was a thing, counter play options open up. A side decks gives that player options if they fell night march is a issue for their deck.

I also ask again that you be careful because your examples aren't making things more clear but less. Even "tech" without the capitalization to indicate my older definition still shouldn't involve 12 cards! That's changing your deck's structure. Even a 2-2 line of Pyroar (FLF) is pushing the limits of tech and TecH. Plus it is just a really bad solution for the problem. Try adding in

• more fast, single Prize attackers you quickly set-up and afford to trade
• spread attackers to take out multiple of your opponent's Pokémon at once
• counters for Items because the deck needs to use them heavily to set-up
• counters for Abilities because most builds also need those to set-up, some for their main attacker (Mew-EX)
• Jirachi (XY: Black Star Promo XY67)

I feel a tech is as many cards as needed, The word tech doesn't have a real meaning other than what the player thinks it is. Some decks require a 1 or 2 card tech, like how Safeguard was but if you want Pyroar in your deck and have it mean something, you'll need to make space for fire energy as well as the Pyroar line itself - however many you need. Regardless of what someone thinks the meaning of either tech is, Pyroar is still a tech because its useful against Night march or just the meta in general. Its not good enough to be its own deck again, which is why a side deck would be good for it.

You do not need all of these

. A Hex Maniac or two that you can drop first or second turn so that they can't Shaymin-EX (ROS) for Setup or later so that Mew-EX is a dead card. Silent Lab also can work wonders. I don't like Seismitoad-EX and don't use it myself but it does allow fast, early game Item lock without needing a lot most decks don't already have. Good spread usually is deck dependent but if something is available to your deck, consider it; Landobats is barely hanging in there as a competitive deck but unless I get bad draws, Night March isn't overly intimidating because even when they can OHKO Landorus-EX, I can set-up for multi-turn KOs myself and make-up the Prize difference. The new promo Jirachi was basically made to counter most of the dominant, Special Energy reliant metagame. Edit: And most will serve double or triple duty because they work against a lot more than Night March!

Hex Maniac is a good card. It stops so much and is powerful against setup. The best cards are the one that can do more than one thing. I agree there.

You can't just assert your premise and count that as support, even if you also identify a real problem. Edit: If this is not what you think you are doing, then I'm really, really lost. Seriously, please rephrase, probably without the Fighting Game or Pyroar or Night March stuff, possibly with the deck(s) you think Side Boarding will save. I read this quick and yeah, it sounds condescending but from what I can tell it is what you are doing and I can't think of a more polite way to phrase it.

Well, its hard to do that. I see it as more counter play options and just about all competitive games over that. You can change your fighter or exchange cards between matches. In Pokemon, you can't do that so you are forced to endure that bad match up, swinging the game more in favor of luck, which is something bad for competitive game with thousands of options. I use those as an example because its the only one I can think of. Pyroar isn't good as a deck anymore by itself because of mega evolution and better evolutions now than back then. Pyroar isn't even used as a secondary attacker in fire decks anymore but this card has new life as a side deck card for specific match up. There are a lot of concepts side decking hurts and buffs but thats the nature of this. I believe it helps more than it hurts.

I suggest dropping the analogy because it totally falls apart here: almost everything you mention actually could be considered analogous to a "patch", more specifically the kind that don't fix a problem but just mask it. I'm not sure if you've mentioned any truly toxic cards yet in the ones that bother you. They usually aren't the most blatant examples because frankly its the support more than the attackers. You take out our top attackers right now and the next best just step up and the majority of the card pool still goes to waste.

Thats the nature of balance patches. Remove or fix things that are too good in game. My point was TCG's cant do this unless they release a new set that deals with it. This cost money to print a set of card they believe will fix it where as a patch can be made at anytime and release. The point I was trying to make was a side deck makes this a little easier on the developer since the meta can develop more if a player had an additional 15 card available to them because players can explore other option. The developer can then watch how the cards are used and can decide if something needs address either through an ban or restriction or if counter cards should be made.

A major flaw in your argument is that you point out Side Boards would externalize TecH and slightly more substantial counter plays but in actuality, they wouldn't. You have to side cards out before you can side them in so your core deck will still have to be at least a few cards shy of 60. A sideboard allows you to have what amounts to variable "TecH" in a deck. It also allows some decks to dramatically shift focus because you can find two decks that are basically 15 cards apart. For example, you keep bringing up Night March... while neither build would be optimal I'm betting you can come up with a list for Night March and a list for Vespiquen (XY: Ancient Origins 10/98) and Flareon (BW: Plasma Freeze 12/116) that is 15 cards appart. It would allow players access to Night March or Vespiquen/Flareon or Night Marc/Vespiquen or Flareon/Night March.

A side deck wont dont anything in some match ups. Sure we have to remove card to add others in - we know how they work so I don't think I need to explain it. It shouldn't matter if a deck can shift focus. The point is to give players options beyond the deck. If a Night March players wants more offense, then they can do that. Vespiquen, Flareon and Night March are the problem IMO. There isn't anything a player can do to stop these attack but if cards existed that could reduce the damage or remove things from the discard pile - something like Soul Release. The reason these decks are played is because there is little counter play to them and they are really strong against and EX heavy meta.

Then there is just the fact that the reason decks are so crowded is that there are a lot of great cards. You give people 15 extra slots for rotating TecH or even just alternate full playsets of goodies and the best decks? They'll get better. Even if the weaker decks improve more than the stronger decks, I doubt it would be enough to level the playing field as far as I cab tell.

There are a lot of good card. I feel at times there isn't enough space so I have to make cuts if I want to run it. The point here isn't to care what the player uses their side deck for, just the fact that they have options.

 

[Pinecone]

I've mentioned my views on a side deck before. Basically if they decide to do this, I believe it would have to be 5 or less cards and you can only use side deck cards in game 2 and 3. The first game must be with the initial deck list.

Now suppose side decks are allowed. Should you be able to have a 5th copy of a Pokemon in this deck? Say your run 4 Trevenant XY1 and you want to have a couple Trevenant XY9 in the side deck. Of course you would only be able to run 4 Trevenant during the game, but should the 4 card limit extend itself into the side deck?

 

[Maximinn]

I've mentioned my views on a side deck before. Basically if they decide to do this, I believe it would have to be 5 or less cards and you can only use side deck cards in game 2 and 3. The first game must be with the initial deck list.

Now suppose side decks are allowed. Should you be able to have a 5th copy of a Pokemon in this deck? Say your run 4 Trevenant XY1 and you want to have a couple Trevenant XY9 in the side deck. Of course you would only be able to run 4 Trevenant during the game, but should the 4 card limit extend itself into the side deck?

Interesting. This isn't something that will have been dealt with in other games because, to the best of my knowledge, Magic and YuGiOh don't print different cards with the same name since they aren't as constrained by their fiction.

I would say yes. You would be able to have whatever you wanted in your sideboard, so long as the deck you started the game with adhered to the rule of 4.

 

[Otaku]

@crystal_pidgeot I am going to be responding to you but for the sake of clarity and brevity, I won't be quoting most of your last I've already done too many quotes and its been getting messy. If it looks like I missed something you stated, let me know. Telling you up front I think we are just at that point where we will need to agree to disagree to avoid wasted effort because we just don't agree on this including fundamental starting points.

Now to everyone in general (since this isn't just a PM between crystal_pidgeot and myself) I'm gonna try again and while I'll probably be wording it as if I am only discussing it with crystal_pidgeot, I'm not. XD I put some stuff in spoilers because while they are relevant to this discussion they are also a bit of a tangent or so involved they could be their own thread even when directly a part of the discussion. I am thinking that anything I put in spoiler tags is also my final word on the matter until someone adds something new and doesn't just rehash. After all, I don't have anything new to say on them either, I'm just stressing past points that have not yet been addressed.

So with respect to "tech":

Spoiler

So no, you're not using tech the way everyone else is : I'm someone and I don't use it as you use it, I can cite records that prove it was coined for a specific purpose and used differently. I remember having more knowledgeable players correct me on the usage of Pokémon jargon and it helped me to become a better player and made discussing the game both easier and more effective. This "everyone defines terms how they want to define them" is... stupid. It is of course true; thankfully there aren't literal word police that are going to bust you because you use what has become one of the common definitions for tech or me because I refuse to use the term in that manner...

...but look what happens. Ignore this little side debate. Confusion has been created. Time has been wasted - even if I assume I'm wrong and from now on use "tech" as most do, then it becomes foolish to do so. The purpose of the term was to describe the technical advantage generated by running a one or two copies of a card instead of maxing it out for optimal reliability; early players realized reliability was hugely important to the Pokémon TCG but then they experienced an anomaly when actually building and using decks. That anomaly was how adding one or two copies of cards that helped with problematic matches would win you more matches (from covering that deck vulnerability) than it lost (from decreasing consistency) and this was dubbed "technical advantage", shortened to "TecH" with the odd capitalization because it was the style at the time and finally becoming "tech".

Now that "tech" can mean

1) TecH
2) counter
3) add

It is a pretty worthless term unless one insists on people using it in just one of those ways... and two of those ways are not worth the effort. "Add" is a shorter word more easily understood by others. "Counter" is a just three extra keystrokes. Both require no extra explanation. Only where it explains a slightly more complicated process does it make sense. Even if not everyone agrees to the specifics of "tech" as "TecH" (is it just one card, a minimal amount of necessary cards to run something, etc.) that is a lot less confusing than when it could simply mean "add" or "counter".

So yes, the key to improving the game is better overall design and balance but I am not sure why you are so hung up on Night March.

So about Night March...

Spoiler

It can be problematic but its the small mountain in the range. You should not be having this much trouble against it which is why your decks are indeed relevant. I'm not that guy who regularly top cuts tournaments (the only ones I get to play in are the online PTCGO things XD): I think I lose a little more often than I win. Now I'm still telling you that Night March can be dealt with and that I've done it myself. It doesn't mean the deck doesn't remain one of the better ones and a serious threat, but it is not even close to an autoloss, even once they are set-up. Even if you are often losing to it, if you're not losing by only one or two Prizes, something else is wrong. Maybe you are prone to panicking. Maybe your decks are just extra vulnerable. Maybe you just regularly face some great players using Night March so the deck is far scarier than when I face another schmuck like me using the deck!

The big thing is that players already have options. I named them in my previous post and they weren't even counters specific to just Night March. Adding a Side Board gives a deck more ways of countering Night March. It also gives Night March more ways to counter other decks. I'll repeat that outside of the spoilers later on because its basically the heart of this debate.

Side boards kill Pyroar (FLF), unless it is already dead in which case consider the Side Board to be staking the corpse to the ground.

Spoiler

Pryoar is all about its Ability but Side Boards make countering Abilities that need to work on your opponent's turn incredibly easy. It makes including an attacker that bypasses problematic protective effects incredibly easy. It makes including Pyroar in other decks less difficult. This gets back to why "tech" needs to have a useful meaning. You are restructuring your deck to include Pyroar unless you deck already runs a source of [R] Energy. Pryoar (FLF) can be tech in a deck that uses a different Pyroar. More open but still worthwhile definitions of tech might allow a 1-1 line in a Fire or Toolbox deck. Once you are running half your allowed copies of cards and you've changed out more than two or three, the very structure of your deck is changing.

If you keep bringing it up I'm going to refer to your point about words meaning what people want them to mean and assume I am meant to read between the lines and assume this is a creative form of you surrendering the point. No really though I'll add it to the "ignore" pile, hence why I put it in spoiler tags.

Still if all of that doesn't make sense, simplify it to this for Side Boards:

2-3 Slots to run a single copy of Pyroar vs. 1 slot to deal with it (and in many cases, counter other problems as well).

I've explained how Side Boarding may instead increase luck or decrease the viability of most of the card pool. Now I am saying "may": it could instead work. That is why I need better explanations and good evidence to know which it is going to be. It is important to remember that even if the top players will use it skillfully, we must be wary of effects that allow less skilled players to significantly increase their capacity to win through "luck". This could be pretty fuzzy; TCGs involve luck after all, at least without radically altering how they function. I have repeatedly explained why I believe it will have a net decrease on the viability of most of the card pool and am waiting for a compelling argument

Updates and revisions actually fix things; patches just fake it usually by closing something off or throwing something else at the problem and hoping it distracts from it or when really lucky, does balance it out. Yes, these are "personal" definitions and you are free to think them stupid; I just ask that you insert whatever terms you need to in their place because I believe the point is still sound; some "fixes" actually fix things, others just fake it such as...

Spoiler

I think of the current first turn rules as a "patch": instead of solving the problem of players losing without ever getting a turn by either altering the set-up rules (say by requiring each player has at least two Pokémon, or by releasing new cards that help you get a Bench during set-up or (what I think is the best solution in the long run) having the powers-that-be stop making cards capable of donking people and have attacks available to players for the first few turns (factoring in various forms of acceleration) only be capable of set up or perhaps really mild disruption... we got a "rules patch" that players can't attack first turn. All the threats are still there it is just only one (Virbank City Gym plus Hypnotoxic Laser against a 30 HP target) is still a problem, but it costs us our first turn attacks, a feature that used to be a thrilling part of the game and that enriched the experience because while it didn't start out that way, for a good stretch it was the attack you used for setting up so that you didn't need to rip through your deck with just Trainers and Abilities.

I get your point that a Side Board may make things easier on the developer; it also can totally backfire and make things worse. Remember all current cards were not designed with Side Boards in mind. Future cards will now have to be. This could quite easily be trading one problem for another.

Now for something I want to quote

A side deck wont dont anything in some match ups. Sure we have to remove card to add others in - we know how they work so I don't think I need to explain it.

Given that we are not using terms in similar manners and disagree over how things ought to work, yeah you do need to explain it. I keep going into detail because you're making very little sense. Your position seems is that "If we allow the current top decks to turn the current 2-4 slots dedicated to TecH into a variable four slots that can cycle between the default 2-4 cards in the primary list and any combination of those plus another 15 cards from a Side Board, giving the strongest core decks so many tools to deal with outliers as well as counters to their own core strategies will increase deck diversity and prevent games from being as one-sided." Some people actually do want this; they prefer a format dominated by a few strong decks and having the tools to remove irritating losses to decks that won't have a hope of winning an entire tournament but can take them out of the running by adding up to enough losses to deny them the top cut.

If you don't want to explain it... okay, then don't try. XD I mean I've made it clear that I'm going to try not to try and re-explain these things myself past this post because it isn't doing me any good, doesn't seem to be doing you any good and sure enough, there are some other points that we could be discussing.

There are a lot of good card. I feel at times there isn't enough space so I have to make cuts if I want to run it. The point here isn't to care what the player uses their side deck for, just the fact that they have options.

So... you don't care what happens or why you just want this feature added to the game and who cares if it makes things better or worse? No thanks; most of the stuff you complain about seems likely to be a part of that line of reasoning.

 

[Mora]

@crystal_pidgeot Telling you up front I think we are just at that point where we will need to agree to disagree to avoid wasted effort because we just don't agree on this including fundamental starting points.

Yeah, if you two don't agree on the basic stuff, then there's really not much to debate. In order to prove or disprove a statement, you two must both be able to assume the same hypotheses, and it sounds like you two are having trouble doing that.

Isn't debate fun

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

So with respect to "tech":

Spoiler

So no, you're not using tech the way everyone else is : I'm someone and I don't use it as you use it, I can cite records that prove it was coined for a specific purpose and used differently. I remember having more knowledgeable players correct me on the usage of Pokémon jargon and it helped me to become a better player and made discussing the game both easier and more effective. This "everyone defines terms how they want to define them" is... stupid. It is of course true; thankfully there aren't literal word police that are going to bust you because you use what has become one of the common definitions for tech or me because I refuse to use the term in that manner...

...but look what happens. Ignore this little side debate. Confusion has been created. Time has been wasted - even if I assume I'm wrong and from now on use "tech" as most do, then it becomes foolish to do so. The purpose of the term was to describe the technical advantage generated by running a one or two copies of a card instead of maxing it out for optimal reliability; early players realized reliability was hugely important to the Pokémon TCG but then they experienced an anomaly when actually building and using decks. That anomaly was how adding one or two copies of cards that helped with problematic matches would win you more matches (from covering that deck vulnerability) than it lost (from decreasing consistency) and this was dubbed "technical advantage", shortened to "TecH" with the odd capitalization because it was the style at the time and finally becoming "tech".


Now that "tech" can mean

1) TecH
2) counter
3) add

It is a pretty worthless term unless one insists on people using it in just one of those ways... and two of those ways are not worth the effort. "Add" is a shorter word more easily understood by others. "Counter" is a just three extra keystrokes. Both require no extra explanation. Only where it explains a slightly more complicated process does it make sense. Even if not everyone agrees to the specifics of "tech" as "TecH" (is it just one card, a minimal amount of necessary cards to run something, etc.) that is a lot less confusing than when it could simply mean "add" or "counter".

I agree and understand this.

So yes, the key to improving the game is better overall design and balance but I am not sure why you are so hung up on Night March.

I keep going back to it because is an example of bad design. These type of desks (yes, Vespeon too) throw the game into luck. Since as a player we cant do anything about it but hope they don't draw the right cards and prize what they need. Once those Pokemon hit the discard pile, what do you do? There are no options to deal with it, while other card games would have something to deal with it or not make the concept. Giving players additional cards to work with can give extra option to deal with it.

So about Night March...

Spoiler

It can be problematic but its the small mountain in the range. You should not be having this much trouble against it which is why your decks are indeed relevant. I'm not that guy who regularly top cuts tournaments (the only ones I get to play in are the online PTCGO things XD): I think I lose a little more often than I win. Now I'm still telling you that Night March can be dealt with and that I've done it myself. It doesn't mean the deck doesn't remain one of the better ones and a serious threat, but it is not even close to an autoloss, even once they are set-up. Even if you are often losing to it, if you're not losing by only one or two Prizes, something else is wrong. Maybe you are prone to panicking. Maybe your decks are just extra vulnerable. Maybe you just regularly face some great players using Night March so the deck is far scarier than when I face another schmuck like me using the deck!

Spoiler

Well, the big thing is how much the game is thrown into luck, focusing way more on opening hand. Once they get those pokemon in the discard and can do 180 damage on turn one, what can you do? Now you can play the match up a certain way but you would need a very specific deck that can beat it and still have a positive match up against everything else. Lando Bats doesn't really have this problem but not everyone wants to play it. Sure its not autoloss by any means but my losses to it come when they get the turn one 180 damage whereas my wins came when they weren't able to hit the right cards but I have to be on top of my game all together. This is why I don't like the deck because you have to hope they don't hit the card and this isn't the right way to approach the game.

The big thing is that players already have options. I named them in my previous post and they weren't even counters specific to just Night March. Adding a Side Board gives a deck more ways of countering Night March. It also gives Night March more ways to counter other decks. I'll repeat that outside of the spoilers later on because its basically the heart of this debate.

What options does the player have at disrupting the core strategy? I may have missed that point. It is true that Night March would have to side against its threat but the best decks in the format always have to worry about being tech against.

Side boards kill Pyroar (FLF), unless it is already dead in which case consider the Side Board to be staking the corpse to the ground.

Spoiler

Pryoar is all about its Ability but Side Boards make countering Abilities that need to work on your opponent's turn incredibly easy. It makes including an attacker that bypasses problematic protective effects incredibly easy. It makes including Pyroar in other decks less difficult. This gets back to why "tech" needs to have a useful meaning. You are restructuring your deck to include Pyroar unless you deck already runs a source of [R] Energy. Pryoar (FLF) can be tech in a deck that uses a different Pyroar. More open but still worthwhile definitions of tech might allow a 1-1 line in a Fire or Toolbox deck. Once you are running half your allowed copies of cards and you've changed out more than two or three, the very structure of your deck is changing.

Spoiler

Yes, side decks can destroy Pyroar but realistically, who would side for it? Most decks now can handle it and those that cant have to find a way to prepare for it. Both players are giving up something to maybe gain an advantage. What I don't understand why the changing of the core deck matters.

If you keep bringing it up I'm going to refer to your point about words meaning what people want them to mean and assume I am meant to read between the lines and assume this is a creative form of you surrendering the point. No really though I'll add it to the "ignore" pile, hence why I put it in spoiler tags.

That is fine by me

Still if all of that doesn't make sense, simplify it to this for Side Boards:

2-3 Slots to run a single copy of Pyroar vs. 1 slot to deal with it (and in many cases, counter other problems as well).

Thats the risk with this kind of thing but the opponent may not even have a tech for Pyroar. If they do happen to have that 1 card tech, how effective will it be at beating it?

I've explained how Side Boarding may instead increase luck or decrease the viability of most of the card pool. Now I am saying "may": it could instead work. That is why I need better explanations and good evidence to know which it is going to be. It is important to remember that even if the top players will use it skillfully, we must be wary of effects that allow less skilled players to significantly increase their capacity to win through "luck". This could be pretty fuzzy; TCGs involve luck after all, at least without radically altering how they function. I have repeatedly explained why I believe it will have a net decrease on the viability of most of the card pool and am waiting for a compelling argument

Well, I'm not seeing it. More options have always reduced luck and added more skill. A side deck gives new life to cards that can't make it as their own deck or simply give some more tech options for specific matches.There are a lot of good Pokemon with great abilities that could sit in the side deck. This is true for a lot of cards. Now if a deck becomes less viable and dies to it, then so be it. I don't think there can be a compelling argument for it since all competitive games have some form of side deck or character switching. Something is there for players to use between games where as Pokemon TCG doesn't have this. As a competitive player of games, I find it odd and always have thought this was odd. This was at the time where it was best of 1 but now its best of 3, not having a side deck is doing a disservice to the players.

Updates

and revisions actually fix things; patches just fake it usually by closing something off or throwing something else at the problem and hoping it distracts from it or when really lucky, does balance it out. Yes, these are "personal" definitions and you are free to think them stupid; I just ask that you insert whatever terms you need to in their place because I believe the point is still sound; some "fixes" actually fix things, others just fake it such as...

In the would of gaming, a Patch means something completely different that a normal patch - like how Theory means something completely different in science than in everything talk. In gaming, a patch fixes the problem. It changes frame data, add or remove content, etc. It never just covers it up, like how a normal patch works.

Spoiler

I think of the current first turn rules as a "patch": instead of solving the problem of players losing without ever getting a turn by either altering the set-up rules (say by requiring each player has at least two Pokémon, or by releasing new cards that help you get a Bench during set-up or (what I think is the best solution in the long run) having the powers-that-be stop making cards capable of donking people and have attacks available to players for the first few turns (factoring in various forms of acceleration) only be capable of set up or perhaps really mild disruption... we got a "rules patch" that players can't attack first turn. All the threats are still there it is just only one (Virbank City Gym plus Hypnotoxic Laser against a 30 HP target) is still a problem, but it costs us our first turn attacks, a feature that used to be a thrilling part of the game and that enriched the experience because while it didn't start out that way, for a good stretch it was the attack you used for setting up so that you didn't need to rip through your deck with just Trainers and Abilities.

The current first turn rule is a patch.They didn't fix the problem but covered it up. This also ruined a lot of card designs as well. What happened with Pokemon Catcher would be more on line of a video game patch since it works completely different than just covering it up. Over all I agree with this part. The goal should be just to design better cards

I get your point that a Side Board may make things easier on the developer; it also can totally backfire and make things worse. Remember all current cards were not designed with Side Boards in mind. Future cards will now have to be. This could quite easily be trading one problem for another.

Yeah, it could but my experience with these kind of things, it balances out.

Now for something I want to quote



Given that we are not using terms in similar manners and disagree over how things ought to work, yeah you do need to explain it. I keep going into detail because you're making very little sense. Your position seems is that "If we allow the current top decks to turn the current 2-4 slots dedicated to TecH into a variable four slots that can cycle between the default 2-4 cards in the primary list and any combination of those plus another 15 cards from a Side Board, giving the strongest core decks so many tools to deal with outliers as well as counters to their own core strategies will increase deck diversity and prevent games from being as one-sided." Some people actually do want this; they prefer a format dominated by a few strong decks and having the tools to remove irritating losses to decks that won't have a hope of winning an entire tournament but can take them out of the running by adding up to enough losses to deny them the top cut.

What I dont get is why it matters what a player doesn't with their side deck. The goal is to give the players that option and let them have at it. This is how all games works. The developers give the option and the players destroy it. if address is needed by the developers for balance, the address it. I don't know how else to explain it.

If you don't want to explain it... okay, then don't try. XD I mean I've made it clear that I'm going to try not to try and re-explain these things myself past this post because it isn't doing me any good, doesn't seem to be doing you any good and sure enough, there are some other points that we could be discussing.

Well, I don't know how to explain it to you. My goal is to make the game more competitive by giving players more options through a side deck. I'm not trying to tell players how to use it or what they can and cant do with their side deck. I believe they will make the game better since I can't see anything negative with them in all my years of using them.

So... you don't care what happens or why you just want this feature added to the game and who cares if it makes things better or worse? No thanks; most of the stuff you complain about seems likely to be a part of that line of reasoning.

Well, I like game balance. To me, a concept like night march isn't balance because there is little counter play to it which largely depends on your opponent drawing well. Stealth Rock in the Pokemon games isn't a balance attack. I complain because I do care about the game and want to see it do better than what it is now. The thing is I don't know how to explain it to you since in other card games, this isn't even a subject of discussion. A side deck is just an extra tool to do well.

What seems the be the issue is with Pokemon players being resistant to change... Well to be honest this is a problem with Nintendo fans in general.

 

[Otaku]

I've mentioned my views on a side deck before. Basically if they decide to do this, I believe it would have to be 5 or less cards and you can only use side deck cards in game 2 and 3. The first game must be with the initial deck list.

On one hand, reducing the size of the Side Board will significantly reduce (possibly eliminate) my major concerns... but on the other hand, the smaller it gets, the less sense a Side Board makes at all because the lower it gets the more it becomes "Why aren't we just running these in the main deck?".

Yes, I know why we are not (no room) but that gets us back to the real issues the game needs to address... and a Side Board won't cure the disease, just treat the symptoms. That has actually happened before; the core rules have been tweaked over and over again. Not adding new mechanics but things like "No _______ first turn.", the different ways of handling Weakness and Resistance, etc. The solution the whole time wasn't to make new rules for the cards but to make cards that fit the rules... because when you do the former it eventually falls apart and we are back to square one.

Now suppose side decks are allowed. Should you be able to have a 5th copy of a Pokemon in this deck? Say your run 4 Trevenant XY1 and you want to have a couple Trevenant XY9 in the side deck. Of course you would only be able to run 4 Trevenant during the game, but should the 4 card limit extend itself into the side deck?

Seems like a fair notion except we might run into the age factor.

Oh, that is another facet of the discussion: should Side Boards be available at all age levels? Is it something that might be best introduced gradually, with more complicated rules for tournament play in older age brackets?

 

[Maximinn]

Oh, that is another facet of the discussion: should Side Boards be available at all age levels? Is it something that might be best introduced gradually, with more complicated rules for tournament play in older age brackets?

I don't think it would be necessary to limit them to certain age groups. Side boards are optional after all. If a kid doesn't understand them or doesn't want to use them then they probably aren't examining and countering the meta either.

 

[Otaku]

I don't think it would be necessary to limit them to certain age groups. Side boards are optional after all. If a kid doesn't understand them or doesn't want to use them then they probably aren't examining and countering the meta either.

However the idea was brought up that the "four per deck" rule would be tweaked for sideboards; this seems a bit much for the 10 and under crowd. Sorry for not being clear.

 

[Maximinn]

However the idea was brought up that the "four per deck" rule would be tweaked for sideboards; this seems a bit much for the 10 and under crowd. Sorry for not being clear.

Is it that much? Maybe I'm overestimating kids. The rule of 4 is the same as its always been. In my mind, the sideboard isn't part of the deck. You have your deck of 60 and then you have 15 (or 5 or however many) cards that you get to bring with you to make changes between games. You could bring 15 copies of Trevenant to sideboard with if you wanted, but you still need to have a legal deck after you're done. If they managed to build their deck in the first place they should be able to understand how to make changes to it without making it illegal.

And they don't HAVE to make changes. If they've already put their biggest, baddest EXs in and that's all they're looking for then they don't need to sideboard at all.

 

[Otaku]

Is it that much? Maybe I'm overestimating kids. The rule of 4 is the same as its always been. In my mind, the sideboard isn't part of the deck. You have your deck of 60 and then you have 15 (or 5 or however many) cards that you get to bring with you to make changes between games. You could bring 15 copies of Trevenant to sideboard with if you wanted, but you still need to have a legal deck after you're done. If they managed to build their deck in the first place they should be able to understand how to make changes to it without making it illegal.

And they don't HAVE to make changes. If they've already put their biggest, baddest EXs in and that's all they're looking for then they don't need to sideboard at all.

The game has had some disastrous decisions implemented to 'simplify' things, only reversed when they just weren't working (BW-era first turn rules, for example). It isn't a major concern, though.

 

[zer0call]

I was thinking about this idea of sideboard in pokemon these days and I think that a solution would be to turn the prizes in a sideboard, would work like this:: You set up the deck of 60 cards normally plus 6 cards that they would be the additional prizes(total of 66 cards), and you could choose which would put in prizes. This would end with "My Tech is in prizes, so bad" and change the prizes on a sideboard.

 

[Pinecone]

I would want the sideboard to be Masters only. I'm sure juniors and seniors could understand it, but I want something that makes Masters a little different. Then the younger players will want to play with sideboards too, which becomes an incentive to continue playing the Pokemon TCG competitively.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

I would want the sideboard to be Masters only. I'm sure juniors and seniors could understand it, but I want something that makes Masters a little different. Then the younger players will want to play with sideboards too, which becomes an incentive to continue playing the Pokemon TCG competitively.

That is a bad idea. All players should be playing the same game. Card games like Yugioh and MtG also have younger age groups (the same as Pokemon) and they have no issue with understanding them. Master who are also not as competitive can also have a hard time understanding side decks as well. Those who love the game will continue to play it, as they do now.

 

[neophenx]

I dunno. I get by just fine without a side board. Sure I don't win all the time, but I just think about what I'm likely going to see. If there's a lot of night march/vespa/toad+tina going around, Enhanced Hammer and Team Flare Grunt are obvious techs. Really, it brings things down to the fundamental deckbuilding level. Some people just aren't skilled in deck building. They have no concept of how much energy is necessary before it becomes cluttered, or they end up 100% vulnerable against most players because they tried too hard to focus on a gimmick that doesn't bring them closer to a win condition. I enjoy building weird decks that other people aren't using, but I still build them with those major decks in mind. It means playing my deck differently against a Night March than I would against a Mega Mewtwo. I hear it at work and at league, people suggesting a side-board when all they really need to do is alter their play STYLE against certain matchups. Last Nationals, in finals, why did Seismitoad win over Wailord? It's not like it was the first Seismitoad deck that the runner up faced. Seismitoad won the finals because the player changed HOW he faced his opponent, not because of what was in his deck.

I used to run a Charizard EX/Entei deck and it did well. Why? I thought of how to use the deck's space to deal with problems I knew I'd see. That one guy playing Pyroar who I knew specifically played it at the store? Two Hex Maniac. The Manectric, Lugia or Gengar? Head Ringer them before they link up, then OHKO with Combustion Blast+Muscle Band. Night March? Ignore Charizard usage as much as possible and focus on Entei. Also use Target Whistle to A) Weaken Night March and B) Make Entei stronger. Add a single Enhanced Hammer and a Team Flare Grunt for just a little energy control. All the techs had a purpose beyond just a single specific counter. Hex Maniac made a good first-turn supporter when I had nothing else to set up. Head Ringer hurts EVERY EX. At least ten decks rely on special energy, so two energy-controlling cards in a deck of sixty was just good math. Target Whistle, a card that never sees play, did its job in almost every single game for me, and yes I used it for more than Night March. It got me OHKO shots against someone's Sky Field metal-dragon deck two turns in a row.

If you really do have a huge issue with certain well-performing decks, a little tech isn't going to save you. You'll need to design your deck in a way that does its job while limiting its weaknesses. You need to learn how to play your deck in different situations. Saying "it needs a side board, like Magic," ignores the things that make Pokemon what it is. Would it be interesting to maybe introduce it down the road? Sure. If the game is designed to incorporate it. But to just toss it in to make your own deck better? I don't like being the bearer of bad news, but you really just need to learn your deck, and learn how to react to match ups. My Charizard-Entei lost to Seismitoad, after the XY-Forward rotation mind you. And I instantly knew why: I held onto a VS Seeker to use next turn instead of picking up the Sycamore that I had just played. Then Quaking Punch hit, and I had no draw support. That one mistake left me in an energy drought when I just needed one more energy on bench to keep going, after having pulled a turn-1 Combustion Blast to start the pressure off hard. The problem wasn't that it was a bad matchup, it wasn't that I needed a few different cards, it's that I forgot to play like I was about to be item-locked. I didn't change my style of play, and I lost because of it. The same kinds of mistakes caused me to lose to Night March, playing Charizard, not Sky Returning Shaymin to KO Joltik, those things cost me games against those. Not the fact I didn't have spare cards, but the fact that I didn't focus on Entei's non-EX status.

No, I don't think Pokemon needs a side board. I think we all just need to learn how to play Pokemon better. Pokemon is advancing drastically as a game with every new set I see. It's chanced a lot from what it was when I started around the Diamond/Pearl era's LvX cards. It changed a lot with Mega Evolution, and again with Ancient Traits, and it's changing again with Break Evolution. We just need to learn to adapt to the changes we get, how to build decks with it and how to play the hands we're dealt. It's not as luck-based as people think. It's a game of engineering, so learn to be a better engineer.

 

[Ms Hugo]

I think a 60-card deck is enough for you to include all of your main pieces, as well as techs to combat main weaknesses and so on.

 

[asdjklghty]

No, I don't think Pokemon needs a side board. I think we all just need to learn how to play Pokemon better. Pokemon is advancing drastically as a game with every new set I see. It's chanced a lot from what it was when I started around the Diamond/Pearl era's LvX cards. It changed a lot with Mega Evolution, and again with Ancient Traits, and it's changing again with Break Evolution. We just need to learn to adapt to the changes we get, how to build decks with it and how to play the hands we're dealt. It's not as luck-based as people think. It's a game of engineering, so learn to be a better engineer.

I agree and disagree with this statement. To a degree Pokemon needs skill and to a degree there's luck. You can't have only 1 because this is a TCG. That being said, Pokemon is more linear than other TCGs, MTG especially. Because of this, there are matchups in which you are unable to win regardless of skill. Even Jason K acknowledges this. Are there decks that can beat anything because they are skill reliant? Of course there are. But why focus only on them instead of the game as a whole?

As far as the sideboard goes, I'm not that familiar with MTG but I do know that as I said, it is less linear so it's not so much, "let me specifically play this deck to counter what is most likely going to take up the majority of decklists in this tournament."

"There's going to a lot of Blastoise so let me counter it by playing Vespiquen" and guess what? That worked at Regionals.

Also, as mentioned, there are other little things such as you're not going to do an equivalent of playing so many Sycamores in a game without drawbacks.

 

[Otaku]

Card games like Yugioh and MtG also have younger age groups (the same as Pokemon) and they have no issue with understanding them.

Can't speak for MtG but when I played Yu-Gi-Oh that was most definitely not the case. Is it possible by now the game has cultivated such a younger players? Sure, now let us see how long they keep it before those players either leave the game or simply grow older, and if the next wave of younger players are still just as with it. Some of the best players in any TCG can be quite young, but it is important not to mistake the extraordinary young players for the rank-and-file.

Plus again in this specific instance, you're going to be radically altering how the game is played in an unprecedented manner for the Pokémon TCG and with a card pool that is especially massive in Expanded but was not designed with Side Boards in mind? I expect a lot of confusion in all age groups, just worse for the typically less informed younger players who have yet to finish fully developing as people. Sure there will also be some clueless adults, but at that point its a personal problem. XP

I find myself largely in agreement with @neophenx as most of the time what he is saying holds true. Where I differ is that I don't believe things are as cut and dried as the post reads (which could just be me): there are people who need to learn how to play better and there are cards that are far too potent for the collective good of the game. Sometimes these overlap where there is a good card or deck and it can be dealt with but doing so requires an excessively high skill level. That may sound awful because don't we want this to be a game of skill? Yes... when we get to that level of play. If Card X controls the metagame unless you have World Championship level skills even while at Pokémon League, even when Card X is in the hands of a novice, something is wrong. Of course, "Card X" may not exist at this moment. I struggle with going from one extreme to the other, so please forgive me if what I just said is painfully obvious to the rest of you or even implied by neophenx's post.

Most of the complaints one will encounter are unsubstantiated, which can make things even worse: your opponent doesn't need to invent a strawman to knock down when you already are one. =P

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

Can't speak for MtG but when I played Yu-Gi-Oh that was most definitely not the case. Is it possible by now the game has cultivated such a younger players? Sure, now let us see how long they keep it before those players either leave the game or simply grow older, and if the next wave of younger players are still just as with it. Some of the best players in any TCG can be quite young, but it is important not to mistake the extraordinary young players for the rank-and-file.

Plus again in this specific instance, you're going to be radically altering how the game is played in an unprecedented manner for the Pokémon TCG and with a card pool that is especially massive in Expanded but was not designed with Side Boards in mind? I expect a lot of confusion in all age groups, just worse for the typically less informed younger players who have yet to finish fully developing as people. Sure there will also be some clueless adults, but at that point its a personal problem. XP

I find myself largely in agreement with @neophenx as most of the time what he is saying holds true. Where I differ is that I don't believe things are as cut and dried as the post reads (which could just be me): there are people who need to learn how to play better and there are cards that are far too potent for the collective good of the game. Sometimes these overlap where there is a good card or deck and it can be dealt with but doing so requires an excessively high skill level. That may sound awful because don't we want this to be a game of skill? Yes... when we get to that level of play. If Card X controls the metagame unless you have World Championship level skills even while at Pokémon League, even when Card X is in the hands of a novice, something is wrong. Of course, "Card X" may not exist at this moment. I struggle with going from one extreme to the other, so please forgive me if what I just said is painfully obvious to the rest of you or even implied by neophenx's post.

Most of the complaints one will encounter are unsubstantiated, which can make things even worse: your opponent doesn't need to invent a strawman to knock down when you already are one. =P

Well, to be fair, the expanded format changed the way the game it played. The format wasn't ready for it and there are no balance checks in play in terms of rulesets. Its just use your most powerful deck with old cards. When I played in a yugioh tournament a few years ago, I lost to a player who was like 10 or 11. He beat a bunch of older players and had a deck I thought was technical. I don't know why people think this but children are capable of a lot and people aren't expecting much of them. They understand concepts.

From my understanding, like-minded people surprisingly tend to agree - yeah, I know its hard to believe. It's not a matter of "players need to play better" because a lot of us play at the highest level. You know I like to play the most off the wall decks which have a high skill curve but a lot of the time in Pokemon, you simply can't do anything. Its why I used Night March as an example because its something you can't do anything about if you're not playing a deck that can effectively deal with it, which is why people play it. Also, do I need to remind you of this game?

The strawman here being "Players just need to play better". Players already play well, what needs to change is the game. The game should be better and as players, we should want more. I believe in the past on Pokegym, you said to me that the game will never do best of 3 because of how it affects deck choice and other stuff but here we are. We should want more for the game - its clear I do but the biggest problem here is people either don't do their research, know little about the subject and are resistant to change. I feel the game needs one for reasons I stated before. Whether or not its for the best of the game, the players will adapt and hopefully the cards are better designed for it.