Fairy-Type Representation in the TCG
- Thread starter Hegafire
- Start date
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
Wouldn't it have to be colorless if not a new type? Think about most of the pokemon assumed to be Fairy type when they come out. Chansey family and Togepi family. Nearly all of the pokemon that I would think will be changed to Fairy are already Colorless. I would like to see them improve on the Dragon type cards and make Fairy similar. No need to create new energies. They can be the pokemon you throw into dual-typed decks. Fairies are mystical right? I can see them knowing moves that involve 2 different energies.
Wouldn't it have to be colorless if not a new type? Think about most of the pokemon assumed to be Fairy type when they come out. Chansey family and Togepi family. Nearly all of the pokemon that I would think will be changed to Fairy are already Colorless. I would like to see them improve on the Dragon type cards and make Fairy similar. No need to create new energies. They can be the pokemon you throw into dual-typed decks. Fairies are mystical right? I can see them knowing moves that involve 2 different energies.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
I wouldn't say it necessarily "has to be" Colorless, it just makes the most sense. Remember, Poison moved from Grass (which many Poison-types could potentially be anyway due to how commonly Bug and Grass are paired with it) to Psychic in Diamond & Pearl despite only 3 Poison Pokemon having previously "fit" the Psychic TCG type. (The Gastly line who, incidentally, never had a Psychic weakness, excluding Gengar-ex, implying all their cards were based on the Ghost type.)
I wouldn't say it necessarily "has to be" Colorless, it just makes the most sense. Remember, Poison moved from Grass (which many Poison-types could potentially be anyway due to how commonly Bug and Grass are paired with it) to Psychic in Diamond & Pearl despite only 3 Poison Pokemon having previously "fit" the Psychic TCG type. (The Gastly line who, incidentally, never had a Psychic weakness, excluding Gengar-ex, implying all their cards were based on the Ghost type.)
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
I think they will try to showcase the new type in any way possible, whether it be in the games or the TCG. I doubt they will not give it a new type. Remember, it doesnt need an Energy. It can be treated like Dragon type and require other existing energy for its attacks.
I think they will try to showcase the new type in any way possible, whether it be in the games or the TCG. I doubt they will not give it a new type. Remember, it doesnt need an Energy. It can be treated like Dragon type and require other existing energy for its attacks.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
I believe they gave Dragon it's own card type just because Fairy will be Colorless. This would probally be the best case, since I really cant think of a symbol they could use anyway. A pixie? Nah. Although, I couldnt think of anything for Dragon either so who knows? I dont think it really fits with Psychic, and we already have three types represented in that TCG type anyway.
I believe they gave Dragon it's own card type just because Fairy will be Colorless. This would probally be the best case, since I really cant think of a symbol they could use anyway. A pixie? Nah. Although, I couldnt think of anything for Dragon either so who knows? I dont think it really fits with Psychic, and we already have three types represented in that TCG type anyway.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
I think making fairy a new type with its own energy is a bad idea, for the sole fact that the game doesn't need to be diluted with way too many energy types.
Secondly, making a new type with a "pink" border, but have multi energy attacks is redundant. especially when the weakness symbol can easily be changed into something else, and that first group is already weak against itself and the second group.
Dragon was made to represent the multi energy attack type as well as fixing the weakness problem that dragons have, so having fairy be exactly like Dragon with its multi energy attacks, well, since they are strong against dragon, mind as well lump the fairies with the dragons, and make it have metal weakness, and dragons are normally weak against the TCG dragon type right? Guess what. Fairies are super effective against dragons too, therefore dragons have dragon weakness, because fairies are dragons in the TCG.
We don't need any more types, but Fire, Lightning, Darkness, and Metal surely needs a bigger piece of the pie.
I think making fairy a new type with its own energy is a bad idea, for the sole fact that the game doesn't need to be diluted with way too many energy types.
Secondly, making a new type with a "pink" border, but have multi energy attacks is redundant. especially when the weakness symbol can easily be changed into something else, and that first group is already weak against itself and the second group.
Dragon was made to represent the multi energy attack type as well as fixing the weakness problem that dragons have, so having fairy be exactly like Dragon with its multi energy attacks, well, since they are strong against dragon, mind as well lump the fairies with the dragons, and make it have metal weakness, and dragons are normally weak against the TCG dragon type right? Guess what. Fairies are super effective against dragons too, therefore dragons have dragon weakness, because fairies are dragons in the TCG.
We don't need any more types, but Fire, Lightning, Darkness, and Metal surely needs a bigger piece of the pie.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
If we do get Fairy as a TCG type, we might get another Special Fairy Energy like we got Special Dragon Energies (Blend Energies). When Metal and Darkness came out in 2nd Gen, they didn't have Basic Energies, and I don't think they got Basic Energies until the DP era. They did have Special Energies that provided Metal and Darkness Energy, which is different from today's Dragons. They could fix the Dragons to where their attack cost requires Dragon Energy, and Fairies require Fairy Energy, and then print Special Energies that that provide the respective type of energy and an interesting additional effect for that type of Pokemon.
If we do get Fairy as a TCG type, we might get another Special Fairy Energy like we got Special Dragon Energies (Blend Energies). When Metal and Darkness came out in 2nd Gen, they didn't have Basic Energies, and I don't think they got Basic Energies until the DP era. They did have Special Energies that provided Metal and Darkness Energy, which is different from today's Dragons. They could fix the Dragons to where their attack cost requires Dragon Energy, and Fairies require Fairy Energy, and then print Special Energies that that provide the respective type of energy and an interesting additional effect for that type of Pokemon.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
An effect could be "remove 1 damage counter from this Pokemon for every 30 damage from this Pokemon's attack". But maybe they would need small costs fro the Dragon/Fairy type. The idea is nice though.
Mora said:
An effect could be "remove 1 damage counter from this Pokemon for every 30 damage from this Pokemon's attack". But maybe they would need small costs fro the Dragon/Fairy type. The idea is nice though.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
I'm fair(l)y certain that Fairy will get its own type, if only to showcase it more, with it being new and shiny and all. I'd be twice as certain of this if the new legendaries (or even one of them) ends up being Fairy type. It makes the most sense from a marketing perspective, and the beginning of a new group of sets would be the best time to introduce a new type. They don't even have to give it its own energy type, as we've seen how they handled the dragon-type decently well. The colour would be a light pink.
I'm fair(l)y certain that Fairy will get its own type, if only to showcase it more, with it being new and shiny and all. I'd be twice as certain of this if the new legendaries (or even one of them) ends up being Fairy type. It makes the most sense from a marketing perspective, and the beginning of a new group of sets would be the best time to introduce a new type. They don't even have to give it its own energy type, as we've seen how they handled the dragon-type decently well. The colour would be a light pink.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
How do you showcase something new without being overdone and redundant?
As I said before, having a new type with it's own energy is an overdone thing. Yeah, it will be a new color frame with new energy, but change that color to something like purple, or black, or whatnot, and it would do the same thing. Each of the 8, or even 10 types interacts with other pokemon in the same way. We don't want an oversaturation of different types, but also a dilution of one specific type. The more types there are, with their own energy, the less one specific type will be represented.
Secondly, how would you make a new Fairy type without making it Dragon type with new paint?
So far, all options have been exhausted.
Type with lack of Energy? Colorless.
Type with single Energy? We have 8 already. We don't need more.
Type with multi Energy? Dragon. I mean seriously, why not make Fairies Dragons in the TCG? It would be the whole mystical magical fantasy type, with fairies, dragons, wizards, drawbridges and portcullises.
Unless Fairies are types that require 3 types of energy, but that's stretching it a bit.
Artemis said:
How do you showcase something new without being overdone and redundant?
As I said before, having a new type with it's own energy is an overdone thing. Yeah, it will be a new color frame with new energy, but change that color to something like purple, or black, or whatnot, and it would do the same thing. Each of the 8, or even 10 types interacts with other pokemon in the same way. We don't want an oversaturation of different types, but also a dilution of one specific type. The more types there are, with their own energy, the less one specific type will be represented.
Secondly, how would you make a new Fairy type without making it Dragon type with new paint?
So far, all options have been exhausted.
Type with lack of Energy? Colorless.
Type with single Energy? We have 8 already. We don't need more.
Type with multi Energy? Dragon. I mean seriously, why not make Fairies Dragons in the TCG? It would be the whole mystical magical fantasy type, with fairies, dragons, wizards, drawbridges and portcullises.
Unless Fairies are types that require 3 types of energy, but that's stretching it a bit.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
While those are interesting theoretical questions, I don't really think they have any bearing on how Pokémon makes it marketing choices. As an example, may I present to you the 5 million Reshirams and Zekroms that were released throughout the BW TCG set.
I didn't say that was how I would choose to do things; it isn't. But that is how I think it will be done, based on previous patterns.
Also, portcullis item card, please.
While those are interesting theoretical questions, I don't really think they have any bearing on how Pokémon makes it marketing choices. As an example, may I present to you the 5 million Reshirams and Zekroms that were released throughout the BW TCG set.
I didn't say that was how I would choose to do things; it isn't. But that is how I think it will be done, based on previous patterns.
Also, portcullis item card, please.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
Well, let's just hope they don't do something dumb. Also basing on patterns that happened only once isn't good basis at all. I mean, we have been only bombarded with new pokemon types twice only, and for good reason too, or else the "game" in trading card game will no longer exist, or would be unplayable.
Artemis said:While those are interesting theoretical questions, I don't really think they have any bearing on how Pokémon makes it marketing choices. As an example, may I present to you the 5 million Reshirams and Zekroms that were released throughout the BW TCG set.
I didn't say that was how I would choose to do things; it isn't. But that is how I think it will be done, based on previous patterns.
Also, portcullis item card, please.
Well, let's just hope they don't do something dumb. Also basing on patterns that happened only once isn't good basis at all. I mean, we have been only bombarded with new pokemon types twice only, and for good reason too, or else the "game" in trading card game will no longer exist, or would be unplayable.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
It was just one example, and not the only example we've seen of Pokémon marketing something to death. I'm certainly not basing anything on just the one example, I just felt is was a recent (and somewhat humourous) one. And even then, I don't think just including the new type in the TCG is something as terrible as "marketing to death" either.
It was just one example, and not the only example we've seen of Pokémon marketing something to death. I'm certainly not basing anything on just the one example, I just felt is was a recent (and somewhat humourous) one. And even then, I don't think just including the new type in the TCG is something as terrible as "marketing to death" either.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
The recent sets, more than ever bombard us with the same Pokémon. I have enough Pansear for Christ sake, no more TPCI.
The recent sets, more than ever bombard us with the same Pokémon. I have enough Pansear for Christ sake, no more TPCI.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
Would you rather have Pansear in a fresh coat of paint? Silver, or even Black perhaps? Haha. Or would you have Pansear have a different name?
That's what I observe with this game. Same abilities, same HP, same everything, but different Pokemon name, different attack, or different type. It's like rock paper scissors. Each choice doesn't matter because the outcome is dependent on what your opponent chooses.
I too wish that the new sets have more pokemon represented, but I would like to have unique cards in each set, rather than recolors, or same cards different names.
The whole same pokemon different abilities thing is kind of dumb too, because why would you use the crappy version if you can use the better one? Why waste deck slot?
I am just going to hope that the makers of Pokemon TCG don't do something stupid and make Fairy a brand new type. I wouldn't worry though, since the Japanese people who make this game make it as a game, and not a collectible item. TPCi would probably make Fairy into its own type, but not the Japanese makers of this game. They'd probably lump them with Dragon, or keep them colorless, while thinking about game balance.
If it were TPCi, we'd see all 17, now 18 types from the games represented in the TCG, all with their own energy. In this case they are thinking about the collector, and not thinking about the "game" in "trading card game".
I have a really hard time believing if TPCi could create a brand new Pokemon TCG set from scratch that is balanced, and good for the game, without importing a Japanese set. From the products they sell, they are more geared towards the collector, rather than the player. The only product they sell that is geared towards the player would be the theme deck, and maybe booster pack, and that is all. Not a lot of tournament formats either.
ThatPokemonCollector said:
Would you rather have Pansear in a fresh coat of paint? Silver, or even Black perhaps? Haha. Or would you have Pansear have a different name?
That's what I observe with this game. Same abilities, same HP, same everything, but different Pokemon name, different attack, or different type. It's like rock paper scissors. Each choice doesn't matter because the outcome is dependent on what your opponent chooses.
I too wish that the new sets have more pokemon represented, but I would like to have unique cards in each set, rather than recolors, or same cards different names.
The whole same pokemon different abilities thing is kind of dumb too, because why would you use the crappy version if you can use the better one? Why waste deck slot?
I am just going to hope that the makers of Pokemon TCG don't do something stupid and make Fairy a brand new type. I wouldn't worry though, since the Japanese people who make this game make it as a game, and not a collectible item. TPCi would probably make Fairy into its own type, but not the Japanese makers of this game. They'd probably lump them with Dragon, or keep them colorless, while thinking about game balance.
If it were TPCi, we'd see all 17, now 18 types from the games represented in the TCG, all with their own energy. In this case they are thinking about the collector, and not thinking about the "game" in "trading card game".
I have a really hard time believing if TPCi could create a brand new Pokemon TCG set from scratch that is balanced, and good for the game, without importing a Japanese set. From the products they sell, they are more geared towards the collector, rather than the player. The only product they sell that is geared towards the player would be the theme deck, and maybe booster pack, and that is all. Not a lot of tournament formats either.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
I just want sets to be more interesting, I feel the magic of the set has been ruined by lack of ideas and the popularity of the internet....
I just want sets to be more interesting, I feel the magic of the set has been ruined by lack of ideas and the popularity of the internet....
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
Two little flubs I have with signofzeta's idea.
- Fairies are typically kinda cutish, and to have that random Dragon icon on their cards would be a bit off (my 2 cents)
- And following on that, having Fairie Pokemon be put on that awful copper colour they use for Dragons would be kinda lame.
It's possible I would think to give Fairies their own colour, and let the attacks be Colourless where applicable, and need their appropriate Energy where applicable for that. It could make Fairies the ultimate splash I guess, but then you have the problem of making Colourless Pokemon put on the back burner again? The only solution I really see is a separate colour and a separate Energy, but can the game widen to accept that quickly enough to make Fairies viable after their launch? Remember back in Neo when Metal and Dark was nowhere to be seen? Do you want that with a new colour nowadays??
Two little flubs I have with signofzeta's idea.
- Fairies are typically kinda cutish, and to have that random Dragon icon on their cards would be a bit off (my 2 cents)
- And following on that, having Fairie Pokemon be put on that awful copper colour they use for Dragons would be kinda lame.
It's possible I would think to give Fairies their own colour, and let the attacks be Colourless where applicable, and need their appropriate Energy where applicable for that. It could make Fairies the ultimate splash I guess, but then you have the problem of making Colourless Pokemon put on the back burner again? The only solution I really see is a separate colour and a separate Energy, but can the game widen to accept that quickly enough to make Fairies viable after their launch? Remember back in Neo when Metal and Dark was nowhere to be seen? Do you want that with a new colour nowadays??
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
I'm thinking colorless too, but if they included it with dragon, they don't have to do any thinking.
They are NOT going to make a new type with it's own energy. You have to think gameplay balance, and pull rates, and limited booster sealed pack play.
Adding another energy type would dilute each type, and that's bad. Sometimes if the only solution is a bad one, you just don't use that solution. There is nothing wrong with lumping fairies with colorless. That would be the default solution.
The simplest solution is lumping it with dragon. Dragons are weak against dragons and fairies, and the only thing to change for fairies is from a dragon to a metal weakness.
Fairies are either colorless or dragon.
blargh257 said:
I'm thinking colorless too, but if they included it with dragon, they don't have to do any thinking.
They are NOT going to make a new type with it's own energy. You have to think gameplay balance, and pull rates, and limited booster sealed pack play.
Adding another energy type would dilute each type, and that's bad. Sometimes if the only solution is a bad one, you just don't use that solution. There is nothing wrong with lumping fairies with colorless. That would be the default solution.
The simplest solution is lumping it with dragon. Dragons are weak against dragons and fairies, and the only thing to change for fairies is from a dragon to a metal weakness.
Fairies are either colorless or dragon.
RE: Fairy Type representation in the TCG
If they add it to the Dragon type, they will need to rename the type to something like 'Mystical' type. It won't happen. Fairies and dragons are total opposites. All mystical, yes, but that is where the similarities end.
~ Make Fairy it's own type. Weak to Metal, since only a few Water types (Ice) are weak to it, and give it resistence to Dragon types. Also, MAYBE make all or some Dark types weak to it. Having Dark types be weak to Fighting types makes sense, but not a Ground type Sandshrew or a Rock type Onyx. Weak to Fairy is better than Fighting.
~ Like it's mystical counterpart (Dragon type), have the energy requirements be other energies, OR create a Dragon energy and a Fairy energey at the start of X and Y.
If they add it to the Dragon type, they will need to rename the type to something like 'Mystical' type. It won't happen. Fairies and dragons are total opposites. All mystical, yes, but that is where the similarities end.
~ Make Fairy it's own type. Weak to Metal, since only a few Water types (Ice) are weak to it, and give it resistence to Dragon types. Also, MAYBE make all or some Dark types weak to it. Having Dark types be weak to Fighting types makes sense, but not a Ground type Sandshrew or a Rock type Onyx. Weak to Fairy is better than Fighting.
~ Like it's mystical counterpart (Dragon type), have the energy requirements be other energies, OR create a Dragon energy and a Fairy energey at the start of X and Y.