N isn't that good?! What game are you playing, awesome draw support and disruption, you must be playing some theme deck level players if you can get away without using it lol
Help What Will Replace N
- Thread starter Jerry White
- Start date
Replacement for N has to be Ilima or Wicke with what we have now I'd prefer Ilima honestly but neither are nearly as good.....Hala is an underrated draw support card especially with decks that use GX moves early game
I don't think people really understand the point of N. Ilima and Wicke can't really replace it. N is used for A. you to get a fresh hand early game, and B. Punish your opponent for taking prizes in the late game. The problem is, there is no replacement for N.... Yet. We still have until next year to use the card, so for all we know, we can get something better, or no replacement at all. Hala IS a good draw supporter but not a card that can every replace N.
Lysandre is Guzma. I don't think that needs explaining, but if you're worried about having to switch your own Pokemon, don't worry, good players can work around it. In many ways Guzma is a better card. Example, you can't Lysandre your way out of being stuck in the active, but you can Guzma out, and still get whatever Pokemon you needed from your opponent's side.
The closest VS Seeker replacement we have is Lusamine, but it's a much slower card than Seeker, so I wouldn't call it a replacement... VS Seeker is a card that's older than me, so I think it's time to let it go from standard kek.
Lysandre is Guzma. I don't think that needs explaining, but if you're worried about having to switch your own Pokemon, don't worry, good players can work around it. In many ways Guzma is a better card. Example, you can't Lysandre your way out of being stuck in the active, but you can Guzma out, and still get whatever Pokemon you needed from your opponent's side.
The closest VS Seeker replacement we have is Lusamine, but it's a much slower card than Seeker, so I wouldn't call it a replacement... VS Seeker is a card that's older than me, so I think it's time to let it go from standard kek.
This isn't all true. Cards we have now are weaker versions of what we have now with the hopes they will become useful so you better collect those full art Ilima before they become 30 bucks!
Guzma isn't Lysandre. There are times where you can't play Guzma because you can't move the thing you're bringing up. Guzma isn't completely free despite all the retreating options we have now. Guzma isn't a 1:1 replacement for Lysandre, just as Ilima isn't a 1:1 copy of N and serves the same function with a risk since you (the owner of the card) can draw three cards and the opponent six. Lusamine is a replacement for VS Seeker, even though it's slower. I don't think we will be seeing a card like N for some time because of how it affects the game now and it cripples utility based GX attacks. Now if you want to disrupt a Big Wheel GX, you have to risk going down to a three card hand.
You don't understand the point I'm trying to make. Lusamine isn't a replacement for Seeker, first of all. Seeker is a card that is supposed to be utilized in a fast format, so a slower VS Seeker just isn't a Seeker replacement, because now we can't immediately reuse, and we risk being hit with that N. I don't see the point in you telling me why Guzma isn't a 1:1 copy of Lysandre because I never stated it is, and I am offering the best possible replacement, which is Guzma, as I don't see anyone teching in Lycanroc GX and Repel into their deck. I said in many cases Guzma is better, but in many cases it isn't better than Lysandre. But: There are many times you can't play Lysandre because you can't move the thing that is already up anyway. And finally, I still don't believe that Ilima can ever replace N. Flip cards seem bad no matter what to me. And Ilima relies on luck, rather than actually punishing your opponent for taking prizes. Right now, though, it doesn't matter, because N is still in the format, so there is no need for a replacement unless somehow we get a complete format change and the entire game is flipped upside down.
Why do we need to punish players for playing the game? Ilima does what N does and that is draw cards and disrupt except now the player playing the card also risk disrupting themselves. It's a flippy care, sure but that is part of the risk to using it. There will no longer be times where a single card can make the opponent lose, and that is fine. We now have a weaker option comes rotation.
Lusamine is a replacement for VS Seeker as it can grab Supporter cards from the discard pile. It doesn't matter if you can play it. With Supporters as powerful as they are now, VS Seeker is just too good. Now, with Lusamine, you have to wait a turn before you can play them and if your opponent plays N, then so be it. It's called room for counter play and that is all it is, which is a good thing for Pokemon.
I feel it's time for the game to move on from N, which has for six years now, going on seven by the time it finally rotates.
Why do we need to punish players for playing the game? I don't know, but I'd like to N my opponent from a 8 card hand down to 1, it can really benefit me in the late game. Ilima has too great of a risk to be a good replacement, and it isn't disruption when you basically have equal chance of helping or harming your opponent, now it's just luck.
Again, you don't understand the point I'm trying to make and you telling me Guzma isn't a replacement for Lysandre, because they don't have the exact same card effect, then turning around and telling me Lusamine is a replacement for VS Seeker, when they don't have the same card effect, is now contradicting yourself. There are some points in which Lusamine will be a better card than VS Seeker, but tell me how it can replace a card that lets you immediately use a supporter, because according to the bottom of Lusamine, I can only play one supporter per turn.
I feel it's time for N to move on from the game but we still have it in the format for another 11 months, so I'll use it while I can, but for right now I still don't see a viable supporter that can both help you, and disrupt your opponent without luck.
I agree with you to a point. I think that more room for counter play is great for the game. Nothing is worse than getting steamrolled because your opponent is hitting everything at the right time. However, I think you're overlooking the point that N DOES give room for counter play. If your opponent is dominating you and only has one prize card left, being able to N them to one card IS a counter play. N can turn around the game and decks need to be ready for that.
The point I was trying to make was the cards we have now aren't 1:1 reprints of what we have now. Guzma is a replacement for Lysandre, just a weaker version of it. Ilima is a weaker version of N, in terms of what the card does and Lusamine is just a weaker version of VS Seeker. I'm pretty sure the cards we now will be weaker versions of the stronger cards we have now.
The point of Lusamine is to make you wait to play the Supporter, giving the opponent one last chance to defend themselves. You can't go "Lusamine for Guzma for game". You now have to wait a turn before you can win, which is completely fair. Pokemon isn't like MtG or Yu-Gi-Oh where you can just counter a card when your opponent plays it and in Pokemon, you end up playing solitaire while the opponent sits and wait so the game needs more option where the opponent can do something to defend themselves and right now, hand disruption is the only way to do that.
I assumed we were talking about a post N game but I do agree that N is a card that gives counter play.
Everything I have seen suggests that Guzma is equal to Lysandre, possibly superior to it. Many (most?) high-level decks were already Guzma-compliant, including a pivot Pokémon or able to ready another attacker that same turn. Those that weren't aren't hard to convert, and thanks to the amount of OHKO's, it isn't uncommon to just be able to play-around the potential downside of Guzma by promoting something you actually did not want Active after your opponent scores a KO. I say "potential" because there are many decks where it is welcome, at least some of the time. Remember, the times you cannot play a Guzma are the same as the times when you cannot play a Lysandre.
My apologies if I am drifting too far into the tangent, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Pokémon appears to have been structured so that you combat your opponent on your own turn; there are a few effects that can trigger/apply on your opponent's turn, but the main way you defend yourself with by preparing for your opponent's turn on your turn. Throwing low-risk, high-reward hand disruption like N doesn't do a great job of protecting you. It does a decent job of allowing a player who had earned his or her current advantage to see it stripped away, and it does an excellent job of making the skill of cultivating a good hand for the long run obsolete.
I've had a lot of time with Guzma and I've noticed times where I just couldn't play the card because it would leave in in a worse spot. Sure decks like Golisopod benefit from Guzma since its mechanic involved switching but other decks have to keep the second part in mind and would need a Float Stone or Tapu Koko promo to get around it, something you don't always have. What I meant by not being able to play a Guzma was there are times where playing it is just bad because you can't move what is in the active where as with Lysandre, there are no extra things you need to do.
My apologies if I am drifting too far into the tangent, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Pokémon appears to have been structured so that you combat your opponent on your own turn; there are a few effects that can trigger/apply on your opponent's turn, but the main way you defend yourself with by preparing for your opponent's turn on your turn. Throwing low-risk, high-reward hand disruption like N doesn't do a great job of protecting you. It does a decent job of allowing a player who had earned his or her current advantage to see it stripped away, and it does an excellent job of making the skill of cultivating a good hand for the long run obsolete.
This is part of the reason I don't like N. I feel the hand should be a protected area without easy access for the opponent. I play a Quad Talonflame BREAK deck for fun and N ruins the deck since you can't setup your hand. There should be some reward for smart play and setup but there isn't any and you'll need to play everything mindlessly when you get it just to keep up pace with your opponent. A card like VS Seeker rewards you just for having it and with opening hands being very important, a player who was unfortunate enough to get a bad start, gets beat by VS Seeker and Lysandre, preventing them from getting setup.
Card like Rocket's Admin and from the same era, VS Seeker weren't used like they are now because of how cards were designed then. The best draw Supporter back then were Copycat, Steven's Advice and TV Reporter. Even the Holon engine felt balance. Trainer cards never felt like they won you games but now Trainers do win you game. N feels like, no matter what you do, you lose when it's played and with how powerful cards are now, losing one turn because your opponent N you out of a decently playable hand into something you have to draw pass with.
So, what you mean is that there were times when you shouldn't play Guzma because it would leave you in a bad position, but where Lysandre would have worked fine.
That is true, however, have you counted how often that is really happening, as well as how often Lysandre wouldn't have been as useful? Still might be a net positive in favor of Lysandre, but I doubt the difference is all that much. Which is why I said Guzma seems to be at least on par with Lysandre and may be its superior. You won't always have a pivot Pokémon (Float Stone makes anything a pivot Pokémon
), a Switch, a spare attacker, etc. but my experience has been that often enough I do. If Lysandre were suddenly reprinted, I would not replace all my Guzma with it, or even most of them... which is what would happen if Lysandre was clearly superior to Guzma.To be clear, this is definitely a product of the current metagame/cardpool. A few years ago or a few years from now? Could be totally different.
No sense quoting the rest of your post because we mostly agree. I don't know how good that deck of yours is, but I will point out that the real "villain" is the same as it has been for years: pacing. This goes all the way back to the days of Base Set. Gust of Wind was nicknamed "Gust of Win" because it was often used to destroy more complicated opposing setups or find the weakest link for the final OHKO. The issue was less with it being a "normal Trainer" and more with decks like Haymaker and Raindance being able to too easily OHKO whatever was promoted.
Is it really that bad to lose because an opponent used his or her precious Supporter for the turn to force something up from the Bench? Or is it annoying because so often, its for a OHKO enabled because damage output - especially factoring in Weakness - is so insanely fast right now? If your opponent actually had taken several turns to build up, if not his or her current attacker, at least the kind of setup that churns out such behemoths and your opponent has skillfully gotten you into position so that a final Lysandre for the OHKO wins the game, does that really seem unfair? Especially if you know your opponent was setting up for such a play?
I'm sure we could come up with a scenario where it still would seem unfair, but most of those would boil down to other aspects of the game that aren't quite right. Well, at least in my overly wordy opinion. XP
I repeat, I think if that N is never fully replaced then that is just fine. Ignoring my own personal stances on it the fact is we don't need something like N continually in the format. I really do think any 'replacement' should be something that either makes you choose to help yourself or disrupt your opponent but not both. I won't go so far as to call an effect like N's broken because that might be a small exaggeration (others might disagree here though) but I do think it unnecessary.
I think this whole thing is a bit off. There is often no 'replacing' a card that made a deck the way it is. It's been that way for years and not just in Pokémon. Some cards can't be replaced unless it's with something exactly the same. I think the word that should be used here is filler, because you need to get rid of the 'offender' for something that is current. Sometimes that means the closest available thing, like Tapu Lele GX seems to be to Shaymin EX for the most part.
Lusamine is a decent filler for VS Seeker I think. Is it the exact same? No. But right now it's good enough, quiet honestly at the moment it has to be unless something comes along anyway.
Guzma is also a good filler for Lysandre I think. Is it the exact same? Again no. Is that good or bad? Well I think it will depend. I can see where it might be better and it where it might be worse. After all, I might want to get rid of an opponents stronger Pokémon by bringing out something weaker and hope that turn makes a difference. Or maybe I want to get an instant KO because what I have waiting on the bench will KO whatever comes out. It's all a matter of luck there, and a deck that has a float stone or some other easy retreater (That stadium for fairies, possibly Manaphy EX, or even good old switch) might even be able to essentially ignore the possible negative effect of Guzma.
Bottom line is if every format had a bunch of cards with the exact same effect but different names attached to it then why even bother rotating out?
I think this whole thing is a bit off. There is often no 'replacing' a card that made a deck the way it is. It's been that way for years and not just in Pokémon. Some cards can't be replaced unless it's with something exactly the same. I think the word that should be used here is filler, because you need to get rid of the 'offender' for something that is current. Sometimes that means the closest available thing, like Tapu Lele GX seems to be to Shaymin EX for the most part.
Lusamine is a decent filler for VS Seeker I think. Is it the exact same? No. But right now it's good enough, quiet honestly at the moment it has to be unless something comes along anyway.
Guzma is also a good filler for Lysandre I think. Is it the exact same? Again no. Is that good or bad? Well I think it will depend. I can see where it might be better and it where it might be worse. After all, I might want to get rid of an opponents stronger Pokémon by bringing out something weaker and hope that turn makes a difference. Or maybe I want to get an instant KO because what I have waiting on the bench will KO whatever comes out. It's all a matter of luck there, and a deck that has a float stone or some other easy retreater (That stadium for fairies, possibly Manaphy EX, or even good old switch) might even be able to essentially ignore the possible negative effect of Guzma.
Bottom line is if every format had a bunch of cards with the exact same effect but different names attached to it then why even bother rotating out?
So, what you mean is that there were times when you shouldn't play Guzma because it would leave you in a bad position, but where Lysandre would have worked fine.
That is true, however, have you counted how often that is really happening, as well as how often Lysandre wouldn't have been as useful? Still might be a net positive in favor of Lysandre, but I doubt the difference is all that much. Which is why I said Guzma seems to be at least on par with Lysandre and may be its superior. You won't always have a pivot Pokémon (Float Stone makes anything a pivot Pokémon
Yes that is what I mean. I have also counted the times. With Lysandre, I could always play it when I needed to stall or get a kill but with Guzma, even when I would have been favored with a kill or a stall, I would have to spend extra resources to move a Pokemon to get that kill and if I couldn't do that, then I had to wait, giving the opponent more time to react, which isn't a bad thing.
Yes, it could be but the game has been this way since BW base with the only difference being Pokemon now evolve. I feel the game would be much better off without Gardevoir-GX because it has that same BW/XY design while the rest of the GX Pokemon feel fair. It is definitely a product of the current meta.
Couldn't agree more.
Well, no, it isn't bad to lose that way. I feel the game needs such a card but Pokemon like Gardevoir-GX get too much damage too fast so trying to setup is hard because of how fast it is. I believe my comment was saying with VS Seeker in Standard, plays where an opponent happens to setup slower than your Gardevoir-GX, then you can't down them with Lysandre to pick off things trying to find their place in the world.
I'm sure we could but right now, the game seems to be trying to balance their Trainers. Once Professor Sycamore rotates (or gets banned), decks will slow down a lot. There are a few cards I also feel the game would be better without.