TCG Fakes Base Set Rebalanced (feat. Jungle and Fossil)

Thank you!

I'm starting to do something similar to what you did but i'm trying to focus on some core gameplay mechanics that we (my friends and i) never liked in the TCG, like:

- Removing Pokémon stages (all Pokémon would be "basics"), allowing us to start with any/all Pokémon;

- Creating Pokemon Boost/Train (or something like that) to replace Stages (even non evolving Pokémon would have boost cards):
For example, Charmander and Charmeleon wouldn't be Pokémon cards anymore, but Boost/Train card (similar to a Pokémon tool card) to any Charizard Pokémon card. This way we could start with strong Pokémon but we need to boost them through the game to actually make them HEAVY HITTERS. So, those Boosts wouldn't be obrigatory, like stages are in the TCG game, and only the heavy hitters/almost OP abilities would need it to maxmize your damage/HP/ability, while "supporters Pokémon" (that are in the deck only for its Ability or tech effect attacks) wouldn't need any boost card;

- the Power creep Ex/Gx/V Pokémon would be limited to Legendaries only. And we could run only 1 Legendary per deck.

The main problem we are having is to balance the hp/attack power/cost ratio on the cards hahaha.

Anway, thanks again, GREAT WORK HERE. Your texts and thoughts will really help us.
 
- Removing Pokémon stages (all Pokémon would be "basics"), allowing us to start with any/all Pokémon;

- Creating Pokemon Boost/Train (or something like that) to replace Stages (even non evolving Pokémon would have boost cards):
For example, Charmander and Charmeleon wouldn't be Pokémon cards anymore, but Boost/Train card (similar to a Pokémon tool card) to any Charizard Pokémon card. This way we could start with strong Pokémon but we need to boost them through the game to actually make them HEAVY HITTERS. So, those Boosts wouldn't be obrigatory, like stages are in the TCG game, and only the heavy hitters/almost OP abilities would need it to maxmize your damage/HP/ability, while "supporters Pokémon" (that are in the deck only for its Ability or tech effect attacks) wouldn't need any boost card;
I am currently working on a separate card game, but I had a very similar idea. My problem is now you've kind of reversed the issue - Charmander/Charmeleon become useless until you have a Charizard, and the biggest problem of evolution cards is them filling your hand until they're playable.
Off the top of my head, I think it'd make sense to make ALL of these Pokemon playable straight on the bench. So you can play a Charmander/Charmeleon/Charizard immediately, but you can also optionally evolve one into the other, combining their powers. This means none of these cards are ever dead and the "weakness" of a Charmander is countered by its potential to evolve, which Charizard doesn't have.
 
Nice catch, never thought about the "reversed issue" and your idea to make make any stage immediately useful is good, but i forgot to say some things we are trying to implement in our "variant" (to emulate rpg core games in it) that would "fix" that:

- Each player will have two separate "decks": a Pokémon Deck and a Trainer Deck:
Pokémon deck: will always contain 6 Pokémon cards only and, before the game starts, both players will put down their 06 Pokémon cards, face-down, choosing wich one will be their Active Pokémon and their benched Pokémon. After that, only the Active Pokémon will be revealed. Only revealed Pokémon could activate abilities and/or do some other things (still woking on that). To reveal a Pokémon you need to switch it to the Active Spot or use items/abilities to turn them up.
Trainer deck: all other cards are here. This deck will work similar to the TCG. We will all draw cards from here and there will be no Pokémon cards here. Only Items, Supporters, Tools, Stadiums, Energies and the new "Boost Card".

- There will be a Pokémon species limit: only 1 of each species (Only 1 Charzard, Only 1 Slowbro...):
But you can have up to 2 Pokémon Boost cards per Pokémon in the Trainer deck (each boost is representing a Evolution/stage). So, There will be 1 Charizard in the Pokémon deck since turn 1, but you will need to search for its boost cards (Charmander and/or Charmelon) in the Trainer Deck to maximize its potential (Non-evolving Pokémon can have up to 2 Pokémon boosts too, to balance things, so, there will be 1 Heracross Pokémon card in the Pokémon deck and up to 2 Heracross boost cards in the Trainer deck. We still don't know what the boost cards will do yet (more HP? new attacks? more damage? double energy for that Pokémon? new ability?).

So, we will always start the game with the 6 different fully evolved/last stage Pokémon in play (and choose who will be our lead) but we need to turn them up to activate abilities first (and maybe to do other things too).

Of course lots of things must be changed to this variant to work. Pokéball/Rare Candy would search for Pokémon boosts instead Pokémon (since the are no Pokémon in the Trainer deck). Also, a ton of abilities/items must be changed to work with this since there will be no more "evolving" or place down a Pokémon card during the game, but revealing cards and boosting Pokémon cards instead.

Anyway, what theme are you using for your separeted card game? Pokémon?
 
Last edited:
Pokémon deck: will always contain 6 Pokémon cards only and, before the game starts, both players will put down their 06 Pokémon cards, face-down, choosing wich one will be their Active Pokémon and their benched Pokémon. After that, only the Active Pokémon will be revealed. Only revealed Pokémon could activate abilities and/or do some other things (still woking on that). To reveal a Pokémon you need to switch it to the Active Spot or use items/abilities to turn them up.
We're following very similar paths here, because I have already tried that specific idea and there were a few reasons I didn't like it.
First, and perhaps the biggest one, is that the whole point of deckbuilding is to make a coherent deck. You have to balance draw cards, resource cards, effect cards and "piece" cards (in this case Pokemon). When you remove pieces (Pokemon) from that equation, the deck becomes extremely boring - you're literally just drawing resources (energies) and effects (trainer cards). Granted, your version also has evolution Pokemon as "boosts", but they're very close to resources in the fact you use them to "build up" your Pokemon (and my game also had "mods" and similar cards that did the same thing). So you really have to think of card types in deckbuilding as "angles", a draw Trainer (Bill) and an effect Trainers (Boss Orders) aren't in the same category, even though technically they're the same type of card, but they're used for different purposes. The less angles your game has, the less engaging your deckbuilding is.
This brings me to the second issue, deck size. In extreme cases Pokemon might take only 6-7 slots, but if we consider evolutions and playing multiple copies, that can easily be around 20 (and it should be, in a healthy format). If you just delete that, suddenly your decks are 40 cards big and that's just not a lot of variety. If you try to stuff them with cards from other "angles" - draws, spells, effects - then it'll just be boring. During deckbuilding, cards should fight for deck space, not be thrown in haphazardly. Pokemon cards are just great deck fillers.
Third issue, a small one but it's just another argument, is that it's way more natural to "splash" your into your deck, rather than a separate Character deck. Imagine you want to add a specific Pokemon to cover for a bad match-up, but only in one copy. With a separate Character deck, you'd either have to make special rules, allow for more characters than slots or sideboards. With a deck, it's easy - you put them in your deck and your "punishment" for splashing is deck space.
There were some even more minor things - letting the board state evolve naturally, instead of dropping all cards at the beginning makes the complexity rise gradually, instead of starting at a really high level. If you don't know the cards, you're suddenly hit with six you have to read AND understand immediately. Sounds like not a big deal when you're making these cards, it becomes a big deal when you try to test the game with somebody.
 
Hummm, i never thought about those issues you mentioned... Now i have to think a little more about what i'm doing hahaha. Anyway, thanks for you tips. We are in early stage, so it will take some time to even test it. I just favorited this thread because i feel i will come back here a lot in the future ;p

Are you gonna do any rebalances for gen 2 Pokémon? i would love to see what you did here for Gen 2 sets...
 
Base Set Rebalanced 1.1 Patch

Sup.

Removing Discard Acceleration

While this is not the first change I have implemented, I must explain it first, because it'll make some further choices a bit more obvious. In short, I have removed (almost) all options for discarding Energy cards from your hand straight into the discard pile. The reason for that was simple - regularly, we can treat "hand acceleration" and "discard acceleration" as equal. They have their differences, pros and cons, but the outcome is largely the same. What I have tried doing is move "discard acceleration" more towards "discard re-acceleration", that is a catch-up mechanic that is allowed to have cards that are a bit more powerful. No changes needed on that front - Gym Badge is already a very strong card, perhaps too strong and too universal, so this will make it weaker without any changes to the wording itself.

Below is a Super Potion, a card that got its wording changed slightly to fit this adjustment.

8JFSMW5.png

Supporter Changes

This is a big change, probably the biggest. Many of the Supporters in BSR were experiments and I am happy to say a lot was learned from them. The only "drawing supporter" that remains unchanged is Bill, the classic "draw 3" supporter - everything else is getting a facelift.

Lets start with Professor Oak. My previous Professor Oak had the right idea, but it was simply too strong - it was just a "draw 5" Supporter, which didn't have much downside beside these terrible situations where your hand is already in shambles. I wanted to maintain the general idea, but slow the game down severely, especially since decks tended to draw their entire card stock very quickly. Here's what I have.

kCLBgyy.png

So, Professor Oak is now objectively a "draw 2" Supporter, but you get to see five cards from the top of your deck. Reshuffling is good, especially with how many dead cards tend to be held in Pokemon TCG. The intended playstyle of "holding many cards" is also maintained, as a hefty hand size makes this card more optimal and less of a "draw 2".

Second comes the evil counterpart of Professor Oak - Impostor Oak. Here, no big changes were made - it might be the case that draw 6 is WAY stronger than draw 2, but I am not sure that it'll be completely overpowering. The change that was made is to the discard mechanic, now obviously discarding everything but the Energies, then drawing up to 6. It's not as slick of a wording as it used to be, but gameplay takes precedence here.

DY1D2bY.png

Next is Lass, previously "both players shuffle their hands, then draw 6". I am not a fan of this effect - it's very confusing, it doesn't play well and, most importantly, it makes the players reshuffle their hands constantly. I wanted to keep the effect of messing with your opponent's hand, but leave space for choices to be made, instead of completely nuking their hand arrangement. As such, Lass is now an "equalizer", allowing each player to either draw or reshuffle back to 5 cards. They must reshuffle because, again, they may not discard energies and there's no easy way of policing that.

TkilmPW.png

Finally, we've got a brand new draw Supporter. This came about, because frankly having just 4 drawing supporters made for a very boring selection - if you are planning on using 12 supporters, you'll be using 3/4ths of the entire cast. Now it'll be just the majority and perhaps with a bit more choice. I always treated Mr Fuji as a "free slot" and gave him a very inoffensive ability previously, although it did turn out that healing decks are absolutely a strong contender. That said, trying to find the right effect was not easy. I will spare you the details and just show you the card.

rsZvlNS.png

So, it's a Supporter that technically can draw a clean 4, but also has the potential of drawing three, two or even a disastrous one. The testing will show how good it is in reality.

Actual Nerfs

Now we will discuss the cards that don't get reworks, but actual nerfs - and the biggest offender here is Raichu. I have talked about this card in my initial release post, but the bottom line is - the wording is confusing and it deals too much damage. Both of these things got addressed, with a simple ability and 10 less damage on its first attack.

LtUwEJa.png

In the same vein, Jolteon got a nerf that also tackled a similar "switch" ability. This is supposed to be a support Pokemon, so it made no sense that it was also a very strong attacker.

HLnGHDe.png

Raichu Counter

On top of the nerfs above, I have changed one more card to tackle the idea of "switching decks". Sandslash had a pretty mediocre ability that was supposed to work in switching decks, but dealing 10 for free wasn't really impressive. I am really surprised I have not gone with this version of the ability instead from the start - it even existed, word for word, on the first Forretress card and even had the name "Spikes" to boot. Now Sandslash is a Raichu killer, hitting for weakness and placing damage counters on every switch.

S1MhPTB.png

Tidying Up

When I was writing about some design rules for this format, one of them was to make the attack costs more colorless. I have sometimes forgot to do this, so a few cards got their attack costs "de-colorified".

t7mnbAf.png
Kl4spfH.png
Yy38uoY.png
3QJUOag.png
 
LAST UPDATE

I want to keep this update short and concise - Base Set Remastered now has a one-page website.
You will find all the card images there, I will also add card filtering and, hopefully, a deckbuilding tool with a PDF export for easy printing.

What has changed?
I have been playtesting this set with friends both at the LGS and my workplace. The biggest change is actually not that significant - I wanted to cut back on the amount of shuffling, which takes a lot of time even in modern games of Pokemon. As such, I have switched most wordings from "shuffling back" cards to putting cards on the bottom of the deck. This makes the games much quicker.

Once the one-page website on Tumblr has all the features I want, I will probably move all the text from this thread to the Tumblr account.
 
Playtesting

20221123_190526.jpg

Yesterday, I have organized a learn-and-play session at my workplace, using BSR decks I've printed out. While I have already playtested this set with friends and players at my local store, this one was somewhat more exciting - I was dealing with brand new players (only one of them has previously casually played PTCG Online) and I have not told any these cards were "custom" until the end of the play session.

The results from this session were better than expected. Firstly, I haven't really seen anyone be confused over how the cards work. I have purposefully designed the decks to feel somewhat like Starter decks, although my own understanding of the format is still limited. I have got remarkably few questions about explaining the cards. To be fair, I was dealing with game developers, so there might be some survivor bias going on, but I was still impressed.
Secondly, my concept of replacing shuffling with putting cards on the bottom of the deck worked like a charm. As I expected, even adult players who haven't played many card games have issues with shuffling decks. Removing all instances of unneeded shuffling cut down the shuffling time drastically and let the players focus on the game.

Some cards will be changed - most notably, all Self-Destructs will become completely Colorless, since they are Normal-type in the games. But most changes will actually happen to the decks themselves - they is way more space for trick cards than I assumed, these decks aren't as engine-reliant as regular Pokemon decks.
 
Hiya! Just wanted to say that I find this thread very inspiring! I've yet to read it to completion but each post has been a joy to read ^^
I've not played pokemon in years, but I'm very tempted to try out these sets together now, would just need to convince one of my friends to give it a try with me ahah

I must say that sneaking a peek of your latest post and seeing you mention trying to limit the amount of shuffling effects in the game is very exciting - by far one of the most tedious parts of any card game I've played with others in person!

Effects similar to your Pokédex and Computer Search (if it was changed to put them on the bottom in the same order - or any order of the player's choice - instead of shuffling them back in) are by far the best ways to avoid having to shuffle decks that I've seen in physical card games, I'll encourage you to use them wherever possible ahah
 
@Terra Reveene Thank you for the warm post! It's definitely encouraging to see that this thread can still be interesting to people. ❤️

It is still possible that I will make changes in this format - as I playtest I definitely see some concepts I would like to re-address. However, if that time comes, I want to do it in a big batch, to make sure there's a clear distinction between versions. I didn't even have the time to play every card I made, so there is still a lot to explore in this version.
 
Just found this post...because I'm actually working on basically the same thing. Your design is almost certainly going to end up being the better, more balanced option. Instead of actual game design principles, I've been trying to translate things like HP and Retreat Cost directly from in-game values (with a 20% hp boost to most final-stage Pokémon). Naturally, it has been leading to some silly cases. For example, the base set Chansey goes from 120hp to 250hp, which I've then balanced out by giving it an Ability that doubles all damage it takes, which helps reduce the impact of healing cards a bit as well. Your idea of replacing most shuffle effects with bottom-of-the-deck when able seems pretty good.

A couple of questions that you may have addressed previously (I only read the beginning and end of the thread):
1. How is Bill? With a more limited Supporter selection, I'm guessing it sees some play? When I was looking at ways to translate the effect, I was considering turning him into something like Acro Bike or Trekking Shoes.
2. Have you uploaded the cards anywhere like Tabletop Simulator for online play, or have you been sticking to the physical proxies?

edit: mostly unrelated question #3, but I saw the pinned post in this forum section says something like "get artist permission before using it in a card we post here" , but is it OK to post as long as our cards are re-using art from the TCG?
 
Last edited:
1. How is Bill? With a more limited Supporter selection, I'm guessing it sees some play? When I was looking at ways to translate the effect, I was considering turning him into something like Acro Bike or Trekking Shoes.
Bill is definitely good, but I cannot vouch for him being so strong that it would make a list of an actual top-tier deck. Professor Oak feels extremely strong because it lets you look at a ton of cards without any drawback, even if he technically only draws 2.
2. Have you uploaded the cards anywhere like Tabletop Simulator for online play, or have you been sticking to the physical proxies?
I've installed TTS literally today with the goal of porting the format to it - so yeah, when I am finished, I will post about it here!
 
That makes sense, thanks! Looking forward to hearing more. And apparently I went to edit my first post but now it says it is hidden and awaiting moderator approval, so I guess that's good timing on your response. ?
 
I was scrolling through the list of cards on the Tumblr page, and I'm starting to appreciate why "Dragonite" made it onto the only gameplay photograph on this thread. It's a powerful archetype. Now, I know you're encouraging people to experiment with this format on their own, but I'm hoping you might also be willing to share a few deck building tips.
I'm considering building a deck around Gyarados. It seems like a solid stage 1 attacker, and there are a fair number of support Pokémon I was considering using. However, since this format is geared towards encouraging the use of multiple, non-stackable support effects, I'm unsure what cards to include. How many stage 1 support lines are too many, and how thick should they be? 2-2 would be my go-to choice, but that doesn't leave a lot of room for lines. I'm also debating whether to pair Wartortle with Charmeleon or Pidgeotto.
I'm kind of wishing there was even one sample list. I would especially appreciate a sample Dragonite list, since it looks like a fun deck and you seem to have built (and possibly honed) that list as well. I know, as a game designer, you'll want to encourage people to explore the card pool themselves instead of simply net-decking, but I feel like I beginners would benefit from even one example.
Here is my attempt at a Gyarados list:
- 4 Gyarados
- 4 Magikarp
- 4 Articuno (seems like a spectacular lead, a decent attacker, and a fair way of utilizing Clefable's Pokémon Power)
- 2 Wartortle
- 2 Squirtle
- 2 Vaporeon
- 2 Eevee
- 2 Clefable
- 2 Clefairy
(24 Pokemon)
- 4 Professor Oak
- 2 Imposter Oak's Revenge
- 2 Mr. Fuji
- 1 Rival
(9 Supporters; 33 cards)
- 4 Poke Ball
- 4 Rare Candy
- 2 Computer Search
- 2 Item Finder
(12 Items; 45 cards)
- 15 Basic Water Energy
(15 Energy; 60 cards)

EDIT: if you'd rather let me figure it out myself, I'm already starting to see problems wit this list. The first being that I'll probably need some Energy Retrieval or Recycle to maintain a steady flow of attackers AND stick with the Vaporeon idea. Could still use an idea of how many cards per category, how many lines, etc., would be optimal, though. And I'm kind of worried about Pokémon Trader being downgraded to Supporter status.

P.S. I can relate to retreating feeling like a flawed mechanic. I usually never bothered retreating my Pokémon as a ten year old child because I didn't really see any point in not applying as much offensive pressure as possible. Even after reading Jason Klaczynski's blog, I still don't really utilize retreating very often because of how often a mechanic is. That said, I feel similar about Jirachi TEU as I do about Dedenne GX or Crobat V... I don't think they make a very intricate format on their own (Prop 15/3 has become one of my favorite formats to play, thanks to Jason Klaczynski's explorations of it after the flop of the 2000 East Coast Super Trainer Showdown), but I still enjoy shuffling my Blacephalon deck and going full blast against Lucario & Melmetal GX (which, with the addition of Duraludon V from Champion's Path and Coating Metal Energy, is closer to an even matchup and mitigates several of the flaws of the 2020 formats even if it's still not a well designed format). But that's probably two measuring cups of nostalgia and the lack of a career in game design doing half the work.

This is a fun looking format you've worked on, and I especially appreciate the focus on diversifying the number of evolutionary lines in a deck, something which Prop 15/3 (my favorite official vintage format) started to do, but not with quite as much success as this format.
 
Last edited:
@Charmaster:)
As of right now I have created five decks that I consider "Starter decks" - they are not designed to be optimal, but instead to be a good entryway for whoever I want to torture with this format. I can tell you what I learned from them.
In each of the decks, I run multiple full lines of Pokemon, sometimes as high as 6 (usually when some are Basic). Even that number feels like it isn't pushed enough and there's an effect of "getting repeats" too often. However, I have not yet pushed it further. A big advantage of having a Charizard, Blastoise or Venusaur deck is that the repeats are supporting your main attacker from the bench, but can become another attacker at a moment's notice.

Your list looks reasonable. I am a bit worried about running only 8 drawing supporters + 2 Computer Search. I generally run 10-12 Supporter cards, and I pretty much always run Maintenance and it's an incredible card for keeping consistency. However, I encourage you to try your original list first - it has a lot of novel ideas I haven't tried yet.

Meanwhile, I will put my "Starter Decks" into Tabletop Simulator and push them in the next update. Let me know if you get a chance to play!
 
@Charmaster:)
As of right now I have created five decks that I consider "Starter decks" - they are not designed to be optimal, but instead to be a good entryway for whoever I want to torture with this format. I can tell you what I learned from them.
In each of the decks, I run multiple full lines of Pokemon, sometimes as high as 6 (usually when some are Basic). Even that number feels like it isn't pushed enough and there's an effect of "getting repeats" too often. However, I have not yet pushed it further. A big advantage of having a Charizard, Blastoise or Venusaur deck is that the repeats are supporting your main attacker from the bench, but can become another attacker at a moment's notice.

Your list looks reasonable. I am a bit worried about running only 8 drawing supporters + 2 Computer Search. I generally run 10-12 Supporter cards, and I pretty much always run Maintenance and it's an incredible card for keeping consistency. However, I encourage you to try your original list first - it has a lot of novel ideas I haven't tried yet.

Meanwhile, I will put my "Starter Decks" into Tabletop Simulator and push them in the next update. Let me know if you get a chance to play!
Thanks for the tip about Supporters and the affirmation that I have a fair number of Pokémon. I'll try this list first and see how it works before trying to fit in more draw cards. What was novel about the list? The use of full playsets of Pokeball and Rare Candy over Item Draw? If so, would it make sense to replace the Item Finder and Computer Search with Supporters and keep those full playsets of Pokémon search cards so I could more easily grab them?
As for Tabletop simulator, $10 (while it remains on sale) seems like a reasonable price, but I was thinking more of printing out some proxies and playing with my brother (if he was interested) or my dad (who just enjoys playing with me and doesn't mind what format we play). Would you also be able to publish the lists here or even PM them to me? I would enjoy testing this list against Dragonite, which looks like a good sample of the meta and a fun archetype to play.
Thanks for the feedback!
P.S. I realized that, if I ever needed to remove damage counters from Gyarados to help it last a turn longer, Clefairy stacks with Clefable. Might be useful depending on the matchup, helping you deny your opponent those magic numbers they need to knock out Gyarados in the least number of hits possible. Clefable is going to be useful more often, though.
P.S.S. for a Wigglytuff deck, I'm guessing you'd want to pull out all the bells and whistles and run full playsets of Maintenance, Pokeball, Rare Candy, Computer Search, Gym Badge, and Pluspower (at the very least), with a smaller count of actual Supporters. If you're using a Basic Energy/Gym Badge combo, you could probably throw in multiple Eeveelutions as well. Wigglytuff feels like another good card to build around.
 
Last edited:
Would you also be able to publish the lists here or even PM them to me? I would enjoy testing this list against Dragonite, which looks like a good sample of the meta and a fun archetype to play.
I'll post them on the website, along with a printable PDF of the list.
However, this might take a while. I encourage you to make the second list yourself and let me know how your experience went!
 
Sounds good! It will also probably take me a while to test my list, though (I've been working on other Pokémon related projects lately and need to take a break to focus on productive tasks as well as give myself more time to read and spend time with family), so by the time I get to testing the list, your lists might be up already. In fact, I'm probably going to log off the server for a while after finishing this message.
 
Last edited:

Retreating from this Concept​

In the original card game, forcibly switching your opponent's Pokemon is one of the strongest moves you can do - that's why effects known as "Gusting", now available as "Boss's Orders", are played in almost every top deck. However, the attack version of this effect was never really considered strong - giving your opponent a chance to react and retreat in time nullifies the purpose this effect had in the first place.
When looking at cards from Base Set, I knew that this won't exactly be the case - "Switch" was gone and the game was much slower, so manipulating you opponent's bench looked like it would have a larger impact. At the same time, I knew I purposefully lowered the Retreat Costs of most Pokemon. As such, this effect again left underpowered to me and I've introduced lines such as "During your opponent's next turn, this Pokemon's Retreat Cost is [C] more.". As soon as playtesting started, that these attacks have became both one of the strongest and also the most hated by the players.

Many Pokemon in this format have no retreat cost, but I have failed to remember why I made this change in the first place. Pokemon with no retreat cost either have no job staying in the Active Spot (like Charmander, Bulbasaur and Squirtle), or this is actually an upside you can give to a Pokemon to make it stronger. Truth is, even if "valuable" Pokemon only have 1 or 2 Retreat Cost, that is still a massive cost to pay in terms of resources and tempo, and there is no need to add additional punishments on top of it.

But, this might not entirely address why players dislike this effect. The main abuse case here is when the player using the attack to forcibly switch the opponent's Pokemon flicks between two high-retreat Pokemon and stalls the game. While this is annoying, I do not feel like there is really a reason to address this, as this situation is the result of the decisions made by the defending player, not something that can be passively set up by the attacking player. The existence of these attacks punishes players that quickly evolve their Pokemon without attaching any energy to them, and I feel like that's an absolutely valid space for these attacks to exist in.

Changed Cards:
Ninetales (Base Set)
Pidgey (Base Set)
Pidgeotto (Base Set)
Pidgeot (Jungle)
Victreebel (Jungle)
 
Back
Top