Interested in everyone's opinion regarding what they feel are the most broken cards. To me, the game has become less & less fun with every set released & the constant going overboard with the new cards. It is so much about speed & mega-damage now, really has stolen most of the enjoyment of a game, hardly ever have a good, long, close battle anymore (always the most enjoyable kind). The latest card to embody this is the new Shaymin EX - watching your opponent play 25-30 cards on their 1st turn is absurd. Set Up should have included wording : You can only use 1 set up ability per turn. Also it should only let you draw until you have 4 cards on your bench (5 at most, definitely not 6). Battle Compressor is another overboard, broken card IMO - should've been limited to 2 cards (not 3) to put in discard pile. LaserBank is the last one wanted to mention - Virbank should've been 2 damage counters between turns for poison (not 3), and the wording on HTL should've been : Flip a coin, if heads your opponents active Pokemon is now poisoned, if tails your active Pokemon is now asleep. That card was, and remains, ridiculous. What cards do you feel are broken or go too far ?
Discussion Most Broken Pokemon Cards
- Thread starter Kyuremall
- Start date
Well, tbh, I really don't think Shaymin is exactly broken. Noone would dare get 25 to 30 cards on their first turn now since the Trump Card ban, or they will highly likely get decked out. Laserbank tbh isn't too broken, it's really the laser flip that makes it a really big nuisance. Actually, I think you're miss-using the term "broken". A card that is broken effectively causes the entire meta game to revolve around it and/or interferes with a win condition or game mechanic making it mostly null. Cards, however, can be powerful, which is what applies to things like Shaymin, Laserbank, Toad etc.
Shaymin definitely isn't a broken card in my opinion, but I might be biased since I've played the game for 8 years now. When I first started, the Uxie from Legends Awakened did the same exact thing - except it drew until 7 cards in hand, it wasn't an EX, and its attack for 1 energy let it bail out any time it was in danger of being KO'd. We also had the gross card that was Claydol from Great Encounters - its ability let you put any two cards from your hand on bottom of your deck, and then draw up to 6 in your hand. EVERY. SINGLE. TURN.
Compared to both of those pokemon, Shaymin-EX is very tame. It only gets up to 6 cards, and there's always the threat of it being pulled active and KO'd with Lysandre for an easy two prize cards. And there's also other things, like Red Signal to pull it up, and without skyfield, you have a very limited amount of bench space. To me, Shaymin is honestly a very balanced card. It provides consistency to decks so they don't have to rely entirely on their Junipers every turn being god-like in order to survive, and it provides enough of a drawback so that you don't just spam them willy-nilly for no reason.
I think when talking about broken cards, you have to also look at the context of when the card was being played. For example, Mewtwo-EX is hardly a good card anymore; most decks that play it use 1 copy at most. But during its release in 2012, it was BEYOND broken. The full art was selling for $80+ before US nationals because pretty much every single deck needed to run at least 2 of them in order to be considered viable. It's very hard for me to call any specific card that's legal right now "broken" because it seems that most of them have a variety of checks and balances to them.
Compared to both of those pokemon, Shaymin-EX is very tame. It only gets up to 6 cards, and there's always the threat of it being pulled active and KO'd with Lysandre for an easy two prize cards. And there's also other things, like Red Signal to pull it up, and without skyfield, you have a very limited amount of bench space. To me, Shaymin is honestly a very balanced card. It provides consistency to decks so they don't have to rely entirely on their Junipers every turn being god-like in order to survive, and it provides enough of a drawback so that you don't just spam them willy-nilly for no reason.
I think when talking about broken cards, you have to also look at the context of when the card was being played. For example, Mewtwo-EX is hardly a good card anymore; most decks that play it use 1 copy at most. But during its release in 2012, it was BEYOND broken. The full art was selling for $80+ before US nationals because pretty much every single deck needed to run at least 2 of them in order to be considered viable. It's very hard for me to call any specific card that's legal right now "broken" because it seems that most of them have a variety of checks and balances to them.
I think The Pokemon Lab generally speaking do a good job with balancing cards for Standard Formats. The problem is that cards become broken when you start mixing in sets that were never originally intended to go together (*cough*GPF and Shiftry NXD*cough*).
Hence, the most broken card of all time in the format it is currently legal in is Broken Time Space. Because it allows for the Porydonk deck to exist.
Hence, the most broken card of all time in the format it is currently legal in is Broken Time Space. Because it allows for the Porydonk deck to exist.
...as the guy that likes to focus on the meanings of words, I wish to point out that "broken" has multiple accepted definitions. The only one to absolutely avoid using is ironically the one that makes the most sense because it reflects usage of the term outside of the TCG: "broken" to describe a card that has been "broken in" (players have realized much if not most of the card's potential and it is a well known quantity within the metagame).
However I also strongly recommend against requiring a card be a major influence in the metagame in order to call it "broken". This admittedly seems foolish at first but consider this: in Pokémon there are often times when you cannot use two cards together in the same deck. This allows for at least the hypothetical (if not real world) situation where you have at least two such cards vying for deck space and the only reason that the metagame doesn't revolve around both is that one of these "exclusive" cards is significantly better than the other, again even though both are blatantly overpowered.
You don't have to agree with me (or even listen to me!) but I use "broken" to describe a card that I believe causes game imbalance. This means it can be pretty wide ranging, with some cards being "only a little" broken to some cards being "blatantly" broken (or add your own modifying terminology). This comes from my experience with TCGs; simply dominating the metagame can be a function of card availability or (especially in licensed games) popularity. Combined with my previous point, your suggested definition (while one I do see used quite a bit) just doesn't seem all that useful though sadly we have at least one such card (the recently banned Lysandre's Trump Card) that would indeed qualify.
Last edited:
Yyyyyeah, none of the cards OP mentioned are broken, and the near-total lack of citation and reasoning paired with the arbitrary nerf ideas make me a little upset, but I think OP's problem here isn't "broken" cards. Giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming it's not just the classic kneejerk reaction of "I'm losing to this card so it's overpowered and I hate it", or perhaps "the game has changed since I started playing and that's bad", the actual issue is probably going to be hard to pin down. At the very least, it will take someone who's been playing for longer than I have to identify how the game's pacing and feel has changed over time.
But in general I just don't trust half-baked observations that a game has gotten gradually and consistently worse over time or that label random noteworthy cards as broken. Unless the problem is obvious to everyone, like a deteriorating development team that constantly makes horrible decisions, it's usually an issue specific to the player complaining rather than a problem with the game itself, like the unwillingness to adapt to change in a game that is fundamentally defined by expansions and a shifting metagame. To say that's the game's problem is to fault asparagus because I think it's a gross vegetable. So there might not be a discussion worth having here at all.
Lysandre's Trump Card was pretty dumb though.
But in general I just don't trust half-baked observations that a game has gotten gradually and consistently worse over time or that label random noteworthy cards as broken. Unless the problem is obvious to everyone, like a deteriorating development team that constantly makes horrible decisions, it's usually an issue specific to the player complaining rather than a problem with the game itself, like the unwillingness to adapt to change in a game that is fundamentally defined by expansions and a shifting metagame. To say that's the game's problem is to fault asparagus because I think it's a gross vegetable. So there might not be a discussion worth having here at all.
Lysandre's Trump Card was pretty dumb though.
This would be the one comment you made where we agree, Naglfar. It also great evidence for why you shouldn't be so dismissive of the topic. Lysandre's Trump Card being overpowered is pretty much a no brainer. The reasons why are given in the official announcement explaining why it was banned and the fact that for the first time since Neo Genesis Sneasel we have had a card banned in Standard play (not in Unlimited, not for a Professor tournament). This isn't even like the emergency set rotation that happened when the new rules broke Sableye (Stormfront).
Emphasis added and...
*raises hand*
I began playing in 1999... I think. While unlikely, it is possible I technically started playing with the super-late 1998 release of product but as I didn't specifically get the cards for Christmas I can't clearly remember. I do remember having them when the game was brand new to the U.S.A. and between having to play for pep band at High School basketball games, trying to work out the game with a friend (for the record, I can't believe how many terrible mistakes I made with the rules at that time =P).
I have had periods of inactivity; long before I had regular internet access, someone I trusted told me that Gym Heroes and Gym Challenge cards would reset the TCG and be incompatible with previous product, so while I kept playing with friends, we just used our old cards. It wasn't until late 2000 during my first semester of college I learned my error and early in 2001 I began attending Pokémon league for the first time. From there I was regularly playing in at least a League environment until some vague period I can't even remember where my college coursework required I dial it back. As I was likely still playing online via programs like Apprentice at the time and keeping up with the game, like I said I don't even remember this period distinctly because I still had a clue what was happening.
Where that changed was during the DP-era. Simply put I had to find work and that took priority and when I failed to find a job in my field I had to take what I could find and it left no real time for Pokémon. Not just "I can't attend League regularly" but where I could barely attend at all. The only tournaments I could attend were Pre-Releases, and soon I had to start missing out on those. I finally stopped being able to keep up with the game sometime past the shift to DP-on. I made a failed attempt at coming back, but finally was able to start paying attention and learning again around the time of the HS sets (specifically I began easing back in before the emergency rotation). It was still an incomplete return though; I couldn't really afford to buy much product and still didn't have time for Pokémon League. Unlike in the past I also didn't have a good way to play online and even if I did, most of my friends that once helped me play and enjoy the game had already moved on.
I finally gave up and left the game approximately at the end of 2013. However a few months later I had to replace my ailing and old desktop. I didn't upgrade in a huge manner (couldn't afford it) but I got a "new" used desktop with a bit more processing power and discovered that I could finally run the PTCGO. This allowed me to begin playing again and while it is hardly the same as having a good group testing friends in real life (where you can use proxies to aid in testing), it was enough. I was never the greatest player in tournaments; the one significant win I had was a City Championship and that was with a card that shortly thereafter received an errata. Well, a few Pre-Releases as well, including back when that meant coming out ahead after six to eight rounds and not just three.
I have however made a serious effort at being knowledgeable in the game. Besides being a Pokémon Professor when I could (I still can't attend tournaments, even to help so not much sense signing up for it again), I've made a long term hobby of reviewing, practically dissecting cards. I won't lie and claim there aren't many reviews you'll find where frankly I get it all wrong. Still, since I started reviewing for Pojo back in 2003 (not every Card of the Day, but usually long runs of them) I have slowly become better. I won't claim to be the best reviewer there. There were one or two other sites, but that was the main one. I also covered a few other games (again, there and one or two other short lived tries on different sites).
I also realize volunteer, unpaid reviewing on Pojo is hardly a major credential, but I like to think it is worth a little something.
I'll add that a lot of what concerns me in Pokémon I saw echoed in Yu-Gi-Oh, including players that were either relatively green and/or riding high on success having a hard time accepting some pretty obviously unbalanced cards. I dunno if you ever played that TCG, but I had people insist normal Spells (equivalent of Items) that wiped out all of an opponent's Monsters in play or a different one that wiped out all of their Spells in play were totally balanced, skill cards because you really needed to optimize the usage of such cards, seeing as how they were restricted to one copy per deck (but not either/or, so less stringent than Ace Specs). Even more important, I saw a lot of this echoed in Pokémon's own past history as well; it has largely been repeated the last few years and at an accelerated rate.
I have had periods of inactivity; long before I had regular internet access, someone I trusted told me that Gym Heroes and Gym Challenge cards would reset the TCG and be incompatible with previous product, so while I kept playing with friends, we just used our old cards. It wasn't until late 2000 during my first semester of college I learned my error and early in 2001 I began attending Pokémon league for the first time. From there I was regularly playing in at least a League environment until some vague period I can't even remember where my college coursework required I dial it back. As I was likely still playing online via programs like Apprentice at the time and keeping up with the game, like I said I don't even remember this period distinctly because I still had a clue what was happening.
Where that changed was during the DP-era. Simply put I had to find work and that took priority and when I failed to find a job in my field I had to take what I could find and it left no real time for Pokémon. Not just "I can't attend League regularly" but where I could barely attend at all. The only tournaments I could attend were Pre-Releases, and soon I had to start missing out on those. I finally stopped being able to keep up with the game sometime past the shift to DP-on. I made a failed attempt at coming back, but finally was able to start paying attention and learning again around the time of the HS sets (specifically I began easing back in before the emergency rotation). It was still an incomplete return though; I couldn't really afford to buy much product and still didn't have time for Pokémon League. Unlike in the past I also didn't have a good way to play online and even if I did, most of my friends that once helped me play and enjoy the game had already moved on.
I finally gave up and left the game approximately at the end of 2013. However a few months later I had to replace my ailing and old desktop. I didn't upgrade in a huge manner (couldn't afford it) but I got a "new" used desktop with a bit more processing power and discovered that I could finally run the PTCGO. This allowed me to begin playing again and while it is hardly the same as having a good group testing friends in real life (where you can use proxies to aid in testing), it was enough. I was never the greatest player in tournaments; the one significant win I had was a City Championship and that was with a card that shortly thereafter received an errata. Well, a few Pre-Releases as well, including back when that meant coming out ahead after six to eight rounds and not just three.
I have however made a serious effort at being knowledgeable in the game. Besides being a Pokémon Professor when I could (I still can't attend tournaments, even to help so not much sense signing up for it again), I've made a long term hobby of reviewing, practically dissecting cards. I won't lie and claim there aren't many reviews you'll find where frankly I get it all wrong. Still, since I started reviewing for Pojo back in 2003 (not every Card of the Day, but usually long runs of them) I have slowly become better. I won't claim to be the best reviewer there. There were one or two other sites, but that was the main one. I also covered a few other games (again, there and one or two other short lived tries on different sites).
I also realize volunteer, unpaid reviewing on Pojo is hardly a major credential, but I like to think it is worth a little something.
I'll add that a lot of what concerns me in Pokémon I saw echoed in Yu-Gi-Oh, including players that were either relatively green and/or riding high on success having a hard time accepting some pretty obviously unbalanced cards. I dunno if you ever played that TCG, but I had people insist normal Spells (equivalent of Items) that wiped out all of an opponent's Monsters in play or a different one that wiped out all of their Spells in play were totally balanced, skill cards because you really needed to optimize the usage of such cards, seeing as how they were restricted to one copy per deck (but not either/or, so less stringent than Ace Specs). Even more important, I saw a lot of this echoed in Pokémon's own past history as well; it has largely been repeated the last few years and at an accelerated rate.
So... do I qualify for this discussion by your standards?
So... your counter argument seems very much like an ad hominem attack. Contrary to popular belief, this is not automatically a fallacy as if a claim rests on the maker's credibility then disproving their credibility is indeed disproving the point, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I agree you should not trust half-baked observations about the game. The difference is that is at all. There are people who will tell you its just getting better and better. Those that think it is getting worse and worse and those that think it is somewhere in between. Have them give reasons to support their arguments.
If you want an explanation for why the game has not been improving and may in fact have been getting worse, as well as some examples of overpowered cards I'll be happy to give them, though for now (and in fact the next two day's) I'm not going to have much time: my two oldest nephews (ages four and seven) are here and will be spending the next two nights (and days) with me. The plan was made when my health was a bit better, so I won't have as much "debate time" as I was hoping (...plus I have CotDs to write =P). On an issue like this I prefer making thorough posts that even when they aren't this long, usually take a good deal of time and involve a lot of referencing (on my part if not included via links) and revision (this one actually didn't require too much so it only took me 30-45 minutes because of the length).
So I totally could have been setting myself up to get owned by Otaku there, depending on how you look at it, but I didn't mean to seem dismissive. The bit about LTC was mostly a joke because I thought the body of my post was a bit on the heavy-handed side. Perhaps it was shitty of me to bring my pet peeves into the discussion in the first place. Soz.
But I would like to motion that the discussion of broken cards be continued in a way that's enlightening, rather than in the way the thread started. It's a genuinely interesting topic, but pointing fingers at any card that makes a splash doesn't help much.
But I would like to motion that the discussion of broken cards be continued in a way that's enlightening, rather than in the way the thread started. It's a genuinely interesting topic, but pointing fingers at any card that makes a splash doesn't help much.
...and nephews are currently watching Rescue Bots/playing with their toys so:
*nods* Okay, that might actually be a good idea. As my early posts stated the definition varies a lot... so perhaps you could get things started by going into more detail about what you think it means.
You could also respond to my first post on this thread: how sometimes overpowered ("broken") cards aren't actually all that active in the metagame because something else is crowding them out. This was where Yu-Gi-Oh proved quite influential for me: there were a lot of cards no one would use until the next Forbidden & Limited List banned/reduced the amount of copies you could run of whatever card was "more broken".
After that we can get into topics about how important it is to identify the correct "broken" card; often times it is a combination that seems too powerful and sometimes the real culprit isn't the "face" of the situation. A great example there would be Mewtwo-EX; it was significantly better than the other Pokémon-EX released alongside it but as we all know it isn't the best Pokémon-EX anymore. Additionally the previous first turn rules, Pokémon Catcher pre-errata (when it didn't require a coin flip) and Double Colorless Energy (allowing it to attack easily with a single Energy attachment, even first turn) all made it disproportionately good.
(Sadly when discussing things with me, "getting owned" isn't the worst fear so much as my tendency to go on and on... ^^')
*nods* Okay, that might actually be a good idea. As my early posts stated the definition varies a lot... so perhaps you could get things started by going into more detail about what you think it means.
You could also respond to my first post on this thread: how sometimes overpowered ("broken") cards aren't actually all that active in the metagame because something else is crowding them out. This was where Yu-Gi-Oh proved quite influential for me: there were a lot of cards no one would use until the next Forbidden & Limited List banned/reduced the amount of copies you could run of whatever card was "more broken".After that we can get into topics about how important it is to identify the correct "broken" card; often times it is a combination that seems too powerful and sometimes the real culprit isn't the "face" of the situation. A great example there would be Mewtwo-EX; it was significantly better than the other Pokémon-EX released alongside it but as we all know it isn't the best Pokémon-EX anymore. Additionally the previous first turn rules, Pokémon Catcher pre-errata (when it didn't require a coin flip) and Double Colorless Energy (allowing it to attack easily with a single Energy attachment, even first turn) all made it disproportionately good.
(Sadly when discussing things with me, "getting owned" isn't the worst fear so much as my tendency to go on and on... ^^')
Hm, alrighty then. That's worth unpacking, and now that I think about it, most likely a prerequisite for talking about specific examples. Here are my thoughts on what makes for a broken card:
The first thing I'd like to make clear is that I think there is more than one way in which a card can be broken. The first, and probably most discussed way, is for the card to be too powerful for its environment to handle. I've only heard horror stories of the Sneasel from Neo Genesis, but it sounds like a strong example of this. That thing did way too much damage way too easily to be even remotely okay. A card like that will warp the game around itself to the point where it's almost the only thing that matters. It's probably the single worst way you can screw up a card.
Aside from that, you might see instances of cards that are clearly stronger than they have any right to be, but don't have as much of an effect as the first example. I feel like a distinction needs to be made here, because while some "broken" cards will completely trivialise the game, others will just... kind of make it a little bit dumber. To bring Yu-Gi-Oh back into the discussion (truly a shining case study in the darker aspects of CCG design, and yet how I love it), you might be familiar with a little spell called Pot of Greed; a card that, I suspect, was designed by the Duel Monsters manga writers when they needed more cards to make their characters' stupid combos work. This thing was identical to the Bill we're all familiar with - you played it from your hand for no cost, and you drew two cards. Thing is, card advantage is kind of a big deal in YGO, so everyone's 40 card deck contained one card that would straight up +1 them if they drew it. Yeah, that card was one of the ten exalted specimens to make it onto the first banlist in that game's history all the way back in 2003. The point is that while that card didn't necessarily ruin the game, it did inject a factor of dumb luck that was neither necessary nor interesting. It was, from a design standpoint at the very least, broken.
There's one more category of broken card in my mind, which I would call... systemically broken. These cards don't necessarily have to be too strong, but they can be, and I don't quite have a perfect example. They could be cards that undesirably elongate a game (how many more matches went to time when Lysandre's Trump Card was legal?), cards that consistently throw the result of a game into chaos (not a card, but think along the lines of OHKO moves in the VG), or cards that prevent a result from being reached entirely (back to YGO, look up Self-Destruct Button)... really anything that might make the game less fun or cause the game system to fall apart. These sorts of cards aren't inherently awful, and can still even be fun to play with, but when one of them reaches competitive viability things suddenly get a lot less funny. I do want to emphasise, though, that cards like this can still be fun. Even cards in the first two categories can be fun, and at times I like to use the term "busted" to refer to broken stuff (or even regular strong stuff well within acceptable parameters) in a more affectionate way. Broken doesn't always mean bad things. Some of the most fun things you can do with games involve taking blunt objects to their kneecaps. Video game glitches, for one, are a clear example of a system breaking, but seeing a good glitch feels like this funny miracle that happens in my heart. Just... when something starts to hurt the integrity of tournament matches, or make the game less enjoyable for its players, something needs to be done, you know?
The final thing that needs to be said here is that the broken thing doesn't have to be a card. It could be a combination of cards (which, as mentioned, makes it challenging to isolate the source of the problem), it could be a specific rule, or it could be the entire system itself. I think that can be forgotten sometimes. And like Otaku said, a broken strategy might not even see play due to the presence of a competing strategy that is even more broken.
There's my stupid essay on what broken means to me. I'd better get a good grade for this.
The first thing I'd like to make clear is that I think there is more than one way in which a card can be broken. The first, and probably most discussed way, is for the card to be too powerful for its environment to handle. I've only heard horror stories of the Sneasel from Neo Genesis, but it sounds like a strong example of this. That thing did way too much damage way too easily to be even remotely okay. A card like that will warp the game around itself to the point where it's almost the only thing that matters. It's probably the single worst way you can screw up a card.
Aside from that, you might see instances of cards that are clearly stronger than they have any right to be, but don't have as much of an effect as the first example. I feel like a distinction needs to be made here, because while some "broken" cards will completely trivialise the game, others will just... kind of make it a little bit dumber. To bring Yu-Gi-Oh back into the discussion (truly a shining case study in the darker aspects of CCG design, and yet how I love it), you might be familiar with a little spell called Pot of Greed; a card that, I suspect, was designed by the Duel Monsters manga writers when they needed more cards to make their characters' stupid combos work. This thing was identical to the Bill we're all familiar with - you played it from your hand for no cost, and you drew two cards. Thing is, card advantage is kind of a big deal in YGO, so everyone's 40 card deck contained one card that would straight up +1 them if they drew it. Yeah, that card was one of the ten exalted specimens to make it onto the first banlist in that game's history all the way back in 2003. The point is that while that card didn't necessarily ruin the game, it did inject a factor of dumb luck that was neither necessary nor interesting. It was, from a design standpoint at the very least, broken.
There's one more category of broken card in my mind, which I would call... systemically broken. These cards don't necessarily have to be too strong, but they can be, and I don't quite have a perfect example. They could be cards that undesirably elongate a game (how many more matches went to time when Lysandre's Trump Card was legal?), cards that consistently throw the result of a game into chaos (not a card, but think along the lines of OHKO moves in the VG), or cards that prevent a result from being reached entirely (back to YGO, look up Self-Destruct Button)... really anything that might make the game less fun or cause the game system to fall apart. These sorts of cards aren't inherently awful, and can still even be fun to play with, but when one of them reaches competitive viability things suddenly get a lot less funny. I do want to emphasise, though, that cards like this can still be fun. Even cards in the first two categories can be fun, and at times I like to use the term "busted" to refer to broken stuff (or even regular strong stuff well within acceptable parameters) in a more affectionate way. Broken doesn't always mean bad things. Some of the most fun things you can do with games involve taking blunt objects to their kneecaps. Video game glitches, for one, are a clear example of a system breaking, but seeing a good glitch feels like this funny miracle that happens in my heart. Just... when something starts to hurt the integrity of tournament matches, or make the game less enjoyable for its players, something needs to be done, you know?
The final thing that needs to be said here is that the broken thing doesn't have to be a card. It could be a combination of cards (which, as mentioned, makes it challenging to isolate the source of the problem), it could be a specific rule, or it could be the entire system itself. I think that can be forgotten sometimes. And like Otaku said, a broken strategy might not even see play due to the presence of a competing strategy that is even more broken.
There's my stupid essay on what broken means to me. I'd better get a good grade for this.
Last edited:
The basic arguments against this is:
Your idea of integrity/enjoyment in tournament matches is not necessarily that of the players in those matches.
This is compounded by the idea that viable gameplay options trump non-viable ones in systems where the primary goal is victory rather than fun.
The M:tG community has been arguing about this for a decade and the EDH players still do.
[Although based on your essay (B+ too much water) our tastes line up quite a bit, so please read this without a hint of judgement.]
SO SO SO off topic: Pariah is an outstandingly well-written album and a standout of the genre. Thanks for reminding me.
Well, not going to grade it but I'll give it a "Like".
I'll be watching my nephews for the next two days so I don't know how in depth I can get during the times where I think I can trust them to be on their own.
As such rather than get into too much discussion, I'll bring up a metaphor I like to use for "broken" cards: they are a mountain range. Like a mountain blocks your progress to a destination, a broken card blocks us from reaching a more balanced metagame. Like mountains, broken cards can come in varying shapes and sizes and just as a mountain is a mountain, so too is a broken card broken even though it may be the smallest in its range. Also like mountains, where you are at relative to one affects how you'll see it and how "broken" it may appear: when you are at the foot of one it can block out all others and seem like the only one, even if it there are many more just beyond it... and even if it is one of the smaller ones in the range! Without a proper vantage point and sense of scale, it can be easy to mistake how large a mountain actually is, and regardless of the size, you have to deal with the one in front of you right now while at most making plans for the next one.
While this is true, there are common factors one can consider, and customer satisfaction should be huge. Especially for the Pokémon TCG. Regrettably this is anecdotal so if you think I'm mistaken or lying I understand, but the Pokémon TCG sales are mostly from non-players and non-collectors. That is right, the two main points of a general TCG aren't what propel the Pokémon TCG... Pokémon is: you have a lot of purchases that almost seem "random" because someone wanted a relatively inexpensive Pokémon bit of merchandise that doesn't take much space. Perhaps some also like having the option of going into collecting and/or playing if they find it intriguing. Unlike the games it doesn't require a potentially expensive electronic device to just "dabble" either.
Such people don't buy a lot of boosters, but when the reasoning behind the purchase amounts to "This is the 'toy' I bought my kid for behaving at the store/gas station/etc." I hope it at least seems plausible that such sales are a significant portion of the game's profits because of how frequent the occurrence may be. Yeah the hard core player or collector that buys a few boxes might be getting over a hundred booster packs per set... but he's outnumbered by well over 100 to one so he still loses out.
So the main thing about the Pokémon TCG is simply being "Pokémon". That isn't a very constraining factor, so beyond that I believe the logical approach for a business is to take advantage of a large base that is easily pleased by then tweaking things for the smaller demographics that are a bit more demanding... but pleasing them won't alienate the much larger base. In a sense it isn't quite "nothing to lose" but it is close. I believe that collectors are the next easiest to please, with players being the most difficult but again, collectors being easier to please means that you can usually look at the actual players' wants without having to worry about alienating your collectors.
So... what do I mean by that? Using this as a basis we can discuss guidelines for what people will enjoy and look for not only the lowest common denominator, but also the uncommon things that are okay so long as they don't drive away the main customer base. This is basically my "Step 0" for trying to analyze the state of the game, but that also makes it useful for figuring out "what is and is not 'broken'?".
Nothing personal but I feel the OP is frustrated at being unable to have these cards for either financial reasons, parents maybe limiting how many cards he/she can buy, etc. It's a normal weird human thing to blame something or antagonize it to make yourself feel better about not having something.
The examples you used, have already been established as not being broken. Shaymin EX doesn't allow for all decks to draw through half their deck on their first turn. That's not true anymore.
Secondly, not all decks should run Shaymin. Yes that's right. It doesn't fit in decks like Primal Groudon or even Mega Manectric/Garbodor doesn't need to run it. So saying Shaymin is "format defining" isn't totally true.
Also, there are counters to these kinds of cards, I'm not gonna make a long post by listing them, the mods might get mad at me. But to condense it, Uxie's Power didn't work when people used Power Spray to prevent the effect.
Nowadays people can use Wobbuffet (preferred starter for GroBuffet), Garbodor until it gets rotated out or in Expanded, Silent Lab or Hex Maniac. These are all things to keep the card in check.
Only card I'd consider broken from any recent set would be Lysandre's Trump Card since it completely negated a win condition, provided infinite resources for both players and allowed players to potentially stall a game out endlessly, and we all saw what happened to that card. Shaymin EX I'm not particularly fond of personally as once it hits the board and gets its effect off I find it gets Lysandre'd and KO'd for two prizes before getting to use its attack to jump back to the safety of the hand again, Battle Compressor is only really useful for specific decks and LaserBank was more annoying than broken.
True, and I'd agree to a point, but a healthy asymmetrical game has many viable options during gameplay.
I don't think you can say that for PTCG. There are a handful of dominant decks, but not nearly enough to cater to the average joe pack-buying demographic (one step above collectors otaku mentioned in that they actually participate in the playing of the game). Meaning that Naglfar got it right when he said the system itself is out of balance rather than any individual card. You may be able to point to individual cards as hideous and counter-strategies that run the gamut from niche to viable, sure. However, when a large percentage of the printed pokémon can be OHKO'd by a single attack (whether the attack was natural or set up by support) the game is NOT in a healthy state.
Using a definition of "broken" as "a card which has an effect that radically changes the format, in terms of the play-ability of other cards, either for the better or the worse".
Broken Time Space:
It literally breaks the mechanism of one of the core concept of the game: evolutions are stronger, but you have to wait. The thing about this card is that it allows more combos than any other card and places a bias on evolution-based decks.
When it was released, it coincided with the Pokemon SP; it was balanced to a degree within that particular time-period, because of the Pokemon SP's factor of speed (relatively).
When you take a granados look at what it could do in subsequent formats - e.g. HGSS+ - evolutions had less counters and were most prominent; a turn 1 vileplume - on average - hurt more than the previous format. Then looking at previous formats - turn 1 Pidgeots from fire red/leaf green, or even worse, turn 1 Slowkings from the Neo era. It would have sped up Gardiglade (the deck that had 15 very close variations placing in the top 16 at worlds). Claydol <3. Think nowadays with stuff like level ball, repeat ball and so forth. I have a Flygon(rising rivals)/claydol deck; guess how often I have 2+ turn 1 Claydols and a Flygon with 3 energies? I'll give you a hint; pretty much every game. I can spit out a fresh Flygon every turn. What makes it all possible? Broken Time broken Space.
I could go on, but the overall tl;dr is it radically changed everything. It even has broken in the name. lol
Side note: Broken Time Space makes Pokemon Breeder better than Rare Candy ;P
Broken Time Space:
It literally breaks the mechanism of one of the core concept of the game: evolutions are stronger, but you have to wait. The thing about this card is that it allows more combos than any other card and places a bias on evolution-based decks.
When it was released, it coincided with the Pokemon SP; it was balanced to a degree within that particular time-period, because of the Pokemon SP's factor of speed (relatively).
When you take a granados look at what it could do in subsequent formats - e.g. HGSS+ - evolutions had less counters and were most prominent; a turn 1 vileplume - on average - hurt more than the previous format. Then looking at previous formats - turn 1 Pidgeots from fire red/leaf green, or even worse, turn 1 Slowkings from the Neo era. It would have sped up Gardiglade (the deck that had 15 very close variations placing in the top 16 at worlds). Claydol <3. Think nowadays with stuff like level ball, repeat ball and so forth. I have a Flygon(rising rivals)/claydol deck; guess how often I have 2+ turn 1 Claydols and a Flygon with 3 energies? I'll give you a hint; pretty much every game. I can spit out a fresh Flygon every turn. What makes it all possible? Broken Time broken Space.
I could go on, but the overall tl;dr is it radically changed everything. It even has broken in the name. lol
Side note: Broken Time Space makes Pokemon Breeder better than Rare Candy ;P
Interesting conversation...
To me, a broken strategy that is format valid is more important to take into account than a broken card. It's parts of a whole to really look through.
For instance, Seismitoad EX has an attack with a super-powerful effect that can lock item cards - one that is unescapeable for your opponent's turn. But it only does so much damage, and there are are abilities and cards to attack even with the item lock.
However, once you take into account that there are so many disruptive and damaging items like the hammers, lasers, etc., Pokemon with powerful abilites that help draw the items (Slurpuff and Shaymin EX) or ones that cripple your opponent even more (Garbodor, Dragalgae, and Crobat), you end up with what I'd consider the most overpowered strategies that revolve around this single item locking EX.
How would I define an overpowered strategy in this game? These conditions apply to me:
To me, a broken strategy that is format valid is more important to take into account than a broken card. It's parts of a whole to really look through.
For instance, Seismitoad EX has an attack with a super-powerful effect that can lock item cards - one that is unescapeable for your opponent's turn. But it only does so much damage, and there are are abilities and cards to attack even with the item lock.
However, once you take into account that there are so many disruptive and damaging items like the hammers, lasers, etc., Pokemon with powerful abilites that help draw the items (Slurpuff and Shaymin EX) or ones that cripple your opponent even more (Garbodor, Dragalgae, and Crobat), you end up with what I'd consider the most overpowered strategies that revolve around this single item locking EX.
How would I define an overpowered strategy in this game? These conditions apply to me:
- The opponent cannot "do" anything. By that, I mean it enforces so many restrictions on the opponent that theres so little an opponent can do with their strategy other than play a very specific counter-strategy, or play the OP strategy itself. Basically, Toad strategies before the trump card ban were so crippling that literally every deck had to place a counterto it, all in the name of actually being able to "play" a strategy. I'll bet the Sableye decks were no different...
- When the strategy faces itself, it almost completely becomes a game of chance. The strategy is so strong that once it exhurts itself, not even its mirror match can stop it. Think about how Seismitoad vs. Seismitoad ends up becoming: who is able to hammer off the energies and lock items first most likely wins the game - something that's often determined by a coin flip to determine who goes first. Same issue with older first turn knockout decks.
- The blueprint of the strategy winning is so well layed out that the "skill" of playing it is too subtle, and developing a counter it too complicated. You could say there are particular decisions to think about when playing a Seismitoad deck with the trump card legal at the time, but for the most part, it often takes a decent enough analyzer to actually identify them to see these decisions that separate from the winning blueprint seen in the strategy. And looking at the counters... I mean, Exeggutor? That deck had so much varying creativity involved to be viable outside of Seismitoad as well. I wonder what people did to stop Sableye - I only started playing in 2014. :/
That very much appears to be trying to "make it personal" with Kyuremall; you can discuss the point without casting assertions that it was stated for any reason beyond Kyuremall actually meaning. I don't agree with him on everything and I had planned on getting into it, but thought this thread was moving to more relevant matters. I haven't agreed with most of the arguments for why a card like Shaymin-EX (ROS) is not "broken"; the evidence against seems to rely on using a definition for "broken" to which I object. This is one of the reasons we've been going over said definition and trying to feel it out in both a polite and productive manner.
Broken Time Space might be what we need in our format, in order to provide defense against the EXs.
It doesn't provide a defense against them, it just speeds up the pace of Evolving... which unless it was worded otherwise, also applies to some Pokémon-EX (Mega Evolutions and whatever they cook up later).
Pokémon-EX are not broken as a mechanic; you get a Pokémon that usually has higher-than-normal HP for whatever Pokémon it is and may get an Ability, Ancient Trait and/or attack that also is better than normal for all that is involved but at the cost of:
- Being worth an additional Prize when KOed
- Being the target of certain counter cards already in the environment
- Being unable to access certain pieces of the support
The pacing issues would be made worse by a card like Broken Time-Space returning... which we are already seeing with Forest of Giant Plants: Expanded gets what I hope was an accidental First Turn Win deck and I fear I was far too dismissive of Giratina-EX (ANO) and Vileplume (ANO) decks... in large part because I forgot they can attempt to spam Shaymin-EX (ROS). Oh look, tying things all together again: Shaymin-EX. For the record on the PTCGO (only place where I play) I not only have but have had four for a while (made it a priority). I even managed to pull a lucky Full Art version from a trade locked pack one of the first few such boosters I got, so it isn't a matter of being "jealous" or lacking the card. Ability based draw allows some stupid fast set-ups right now and enables a lot of combos that frankly suck the fun out of being the opponent. Contrary to popular belief, losing isn't supposed to be 100% awful; it is just supposed to be "less fun" than winning. You're not supposed to play the game just because you've got a chance at winning, but because you enjoy playing.
Well, that is how I'd put it, anyway.
Addendum: I won't post it right now because long post is long, but I have a great example of how important it is to apportion "blame" for imbalance and pacing issues in a format... and it involves Base Set through Fossil.