Discussion Cards possibly getting unbanned

CrownAxe

Aspiring Trainer
Member
So, do I keep giving examples where "might" and "almost certainly" are clearly different in their meaning, and where one would be foolish to treat them as being the same, until you're willing to recognize it?

Or do I take your statement and re-frame it as you finally agreeing with me, as "about the same" is not literally "the same", so you are reacting differently to the situations? ¬_¬
I don't get what this line of discussion is supposed to heading towards. Let me elaborate on my thoughts

If "might" was a 20% of happening and "almost certainly" was 99% of happening. To me they're functionally the same because neither are 100% guaranteed to happen.

So in in the case of getting a raise to me they are the same because i still don't actually have a raise yet

And in the case of wally they're the same to me because Wally hasn't been proven as broken yet.
 

Wechselbalg

brb
Member
Hex Maniac originally got banned because Zoroark was able to easily abuse it with red card. Now that Zoroark is not that great anymore and red card is banned, I think it's time for the return of Hex Maniac. With all the Plumes and Mew3s the game needs a solid ability counter. It's not even in danger of being abused with Lt. Surge since that one also got banned.

And no, it's not a one-sided ability lock. Mew3 can't play it at all, nor can decks that need their abilities to be active during the opponent's turn.
 

CrownAxe

Aspiring Trainer
Member
Hex Maniac originally got banned because Zoroark was able to easily abuse it with red card. Now that Zoroark is not that great anymore and red card is banned, I think it's time for the return of Hex Maniac. With all the Plumes and Mew3s the game needs a solid ability counter. It's not even in danger of being abused with Lt. Surge since that one also got banned.

And no, it's not a one-sided ability lock. Mew3 can't play it at all, nor can decks that need their abilities to be active during the opponent's turn.
It is one-sided ability lock when you build your deck to abuse Hex Maniac. Why would I purposefully run Hex Maniac in a deck that needs to use it's ability to attack or later to operate like Mew3?

Which is the problem. Hex Maniac takes pokemon abilities that can't cope with it and shoves them out of the game completely. Hex isn't simply a counter to abilities. It's so easy to splash and resuable with VS seeker that every deck in the game gets to turn off all abilities for multiple turns in a row. Strategies that are reliant on abilities (like Mew3, Eels/Malamar, etc) can't not competitively function in a format with Hex and cease to exist in the game completely.

The fact that it is so easy to play around your own Hex though it what makes it so egregious though. Because now not only does it remove a ton of decks from being in the game it also adds a strong luck factor to winning for whom ever gets their Hex off first. As they get to shut down a significant portion of their opponent's deck with no repercussions or counter play from their opponent and then do so for several turns in a row giving a huge swing of momentum to the player using Hex.
 

Merovingian

Dead Game Enthusiast
Member
I HIGHLY doubt any cards will go off the banlist--only more cards being added to it.

I have a feeling that Flashfire Milotic and Bide Barricade Wobbuffet will go on the list on the next announcement.

If any card were to come off the banlist...MAYBE Wally. I was thinking Ghetsis, but the T2 player who uses Ghetsis is still disruptive as all get out. Hex will stay. Lusamine allows too many easy control loops to exist.
 

Otaku

The wise fool?
Member
Is Milotic (FLF) already causing problems, or is that in anticipation of the rule change, @Merovingian ?

Wobbuffet (PHF) I can definitely see getting banned. While it still requires Player 2 is fortunate enough to open with it, its T1 Ability denial at a time when that should be a lot more important.

I go back and forth over Ghetsis. On one hand, Player 1 will have a turn to cash in on their Items. On the other hand, I don't know how deck builds are going to go after the rule change. If decks become more Item dependent in general and/or start relying more on Tropical Beach (and maybe the new Rotom Bike) for early game draw... well, Ghetsis may get back to the point where the reward clearly outstrips the risk, just on T2 instead of T1.
 

Merovingian

Dead Game Enthusiast
Member
Is Milotic (FLF) already causing problems, or is that in anticipation of the rule change, @Merovingian ?

Wobbuffet (PHF) I can definitely see getting banned. While it still requires Player 2 is fortunate enough to open with it, its T1 Ability denial at a time when that should be a lot more important.

I go back and forth over Ghetsis. On one hand, Player 1 will have a turn to cash in on their Items. On the other hand, I don't know how deck builds are going to go after the rule change. If decks become more Item dependent in general and/or start relying more on Tropical Beach (and maybe the new Rotom Bike) for early game draw... well, Ghetsis may get back to the point where the reward clearly outstrips the risk, just on T2 instead of T1.

Milotic / Trevenant & Dusknoir-GX made 4 Top 8 spots at a recent tournament.

Basically, on their first turn, they use Horror House GX (Gengar & Mimikyu-GX). Next turn, they evolve into Milotic and use the ability and power up a Trevenant & Dusknoir GX and make it Active.
Because you now have 5 prizes to their six, Ace Trainer is now live and you have a 3 card hand.

They can also evolve into the Flabebe that shuffles a card from your hand into your deck. You now have a 2 card hand.

TrevNoir attacks and discards 2 cards at random.

Congrats! You have a 0 card hand on Turn 2!

You now rely on being able to topdeck your way out of it.


Now that I typed this out, I guess you could argue that Ace Trainer COULD also be the problematic card in this scenario, as the combo sort of dies if you can't do it....I mean, you can still mess with them and give them a 3 card hand (you'd be able to hit them with something like N and shuffle 1 card in randomly with Flabebe and discard 2 at random with TrevNoir). But I see Milotic going if this deck will get hit as Ace Trainer going doesn’t fix the problem. But TCPi does not like hand disruption much
 
Last edited:

Otaku

The wise fool?
Member
So... yeah, part of my problem was I got my Milotic mixed up; I was thinking of PRC and not FLF. With that clarified, this scenario seems to be an issue because of
  1. Gengar & Mimikyu-GX's "Horror House-GX" attack
  2. Ace Trainer acting like Prizes are an accurate measure of who is winning...
  3. New T1 Rules
We're probably stuck with #3 for at least two years. Given how TPCi operates, I'm thinking both Gengar & Mimikyu-GX and Ace Trainer might get hit. Milotic (FLF) being banned would only solve the problem if the combo's reliability is the straw that broke the camel's back. Get rid of Milotic, and you just need a two different Evolution lines to accelerate Energy and give up a Prize... assuming you cannot make Max Elixir work.
 

Yaginku

Aspiring Trainer
Member
What is wrong with having wally off the ban list and than put back on the ban list when it is deemed an issue with current cards and rules? Would it be wrong to allow players to use it while it isn't a problem?
Random response, but it's generally player confusion. You don't want a bunch of players buying playsets of an unbanned card, only to ban it again a couple of months later and leaving them out in the dust. Additionally, casual Expanded players might find it hard to keep up with frequent bans/unbans.

I really don't see them unbanning a card that wouldn't contribute to the metagame in an extremely positive way. "Not broken right now" isn't a good enough reason, if you're risking banning it again later. For Pokemon especially, they can just slowly release "nerfed" versions of broken cards and gradually ramp them up back to the same power level, while making a buck in the process.
 

orthusaku

Tired Trainer
Member
Random response, but it's generally player confusion. You don't want a bunch of players buying playsets of an unbanned card, only to ban it again a couple of months later and leaving them out in the dust. Additionally, casual Expanded players might find it hard to keep up with frequent bans/unbans.

I really don't see them unbanning a card that wouldn't contribute to the metagame in an extremely positive way. "Not broken right now" isn't a good enough reason, if you're risking banning it again later. For Pokemon especially, they can just slowly release "nerfed" versions of broken cards and gradually ramp them up back to the same power level, while making a buck in the process.

Not at all random and very much on topic and it is a consideration I didn't think of and I'm glad you brought it up and not having a confusing mess of a ban list that is always growing and shrinking is something that would be a reason not to remove cards from the ban list.
 

cardgjammer

Aspiring Trainer
Member
I saw on the "Sword & Shield Banned Card list and Rules Changes Announcement" that some cards could be unbanned when the second Sw/Sh expansion comes out in May, if not during the upcoming P!P quarter:

Pokémon.com said:
…Details of Changes
No cards were banned from the Standard format. It will be an extremely rare occurrence for cards to be banned from the Standard format.
No cards were banned from the Expanded format. Results from recent events are being analyzed, and the effects of the previous card bans are still being determined. However, with the upcoming rule change, some cards may be removed from the banned card list. Since the player who goes first can no longer play a Supporter card on their first turn, that may reduce the effectiveness of some cards that used to be problematic.
Tournament results and community feedback will continue to be analyzed to maintain a healthy play environment. In particular, the Expanded format will be aggressively monitored because there are so many cards and potential combinations available to use.

^ Will Wally be unbanned within the looming P!P quarter? May? Or will he stay banned? We can only wait and see...
 

Nyora

A Cat
Member
Out of every banned card, the only ones I see with good unban merit are Wally and Ghetsis. The latter is a lot more questionable, of course, and both can still be used for good effect in the late game, but are currently banned for how insane they could be T1.

Wally allows access to Trevenant on the very first turn of the game, meaning that from the get go your opponent can't play any Items, leading to a pretty good chance they can't setup or "play the game". Similar to Ghetsis, you get rid of all of their Items and set yourself up, T1. Since neither of these can be played until T2 now, Wally is now not nearly as useful in Trevenant decks as it once was due Phantump's Ascension attack. Even if there was another Pokemon who could setup Item lock as a Stage 1 T1 (The player playing Wally's T1), it would depend on every other aspect of the card on whether or not the combo is broken and banworthy. Wally definitely has a lot of merit for unbanning seeing as how it's main reason for a ban was Trevenant, but the only good arguement against it staying banned is it's potential to break other decks. Which quite frankly, is not a very strong reason for being banned. Unless there is another combo that is super powerful I don't know of. If Wally isn't banned, I suspect it is because they fear Item lock T1 is even more powerful now (which it really is imo) since you can't play a Supporter letting you get more of these cards, in which case I suspect that Phantump with Ascension will get banned, as well as either Roweggs or Vileplume.

Ghetsis has the less strong reason, but I think still has a chance at being unbanned. Ghetsis can't be played T1 anymore, giving your opponent at least 1 full turn of Item access- similarly to Trevenant and Roweggs decks. The same decks no longer get Supporter T1 access likely making this not as powerful, but they can still do it. Unlike most other banned cards which essentially stop you from having a hand to play with T1, Ghetsis (And Wally Trev) only hits Items, not supporters, meaning going into your opponent's T2 they might still have their supporter from their T1. However, I believe this reasoning is still weak, as Ghetsis can remain a still-powerful card over the course of the game. It also has a chance to establish a hand lock, say, with something like DuskTrev, Shock Lock, etc.

The only other card I'd have any consideration for unbanning is Hex Maniac, due to the same reason as the other two- you can't do it T1. But since your opponent can't take full access of their T1 anyways due to no supporters, how powerful is their T1 really to warrant unbanning Hex?
 

Nyora

A Cat
Member
Nevermind, keep Wally banned. It can prevent an opponent from playing a Supporter at all during the game if you go second. You use Dome Fossil Kabuto to put Kabuto on the Bench, switch it with your Active, then Wally.
 

Otaku

The wise fool?
Member
Huh... I could have sworn I posted something between Nyora's last two comments, but I'm not seeing it now. Did anyone see it, or I did I somehow fail at posting? XD
 

CrownAxe

Aspiring Trainer
Member
Nevermind, keep Wally banned. It can prevent an opponent from playing a Supporter at all during the game if you go second. You use Dome Fossil Kabuto to put Kabuto on the Bench, switch it with your Active, then Wally.
Kabuto still needs to evolve into Kabutops in order to block supporters so this does not work
 

ShaQuL

@KabutoKingTCG
Member
Kabuto still needs to evolve into Kabutops in order to block supporters so this does not work
If you use the XY Fates Collide item card, not Unidentified Fossil, then this works; the card searches bottom 7 cards of your deck and if there's a Kabuto in there then you can plop it on the Bench. Like @Nyora says, you can then easily switch it into Active and use Wally to search deck for Kabutops and evolve into it
 

CrownAxe

Aspiring Trainer
Member
If you use the XY Fates Collide item card, not Unidentified Fossil, then this works; the card searches bottom 7 cards of your deck and if there's a Kabuto in there then you can plop it on the Bench. Like @Nyora says, you can then easily switch it into Active and use Wally to search deck for Kabutops and evolve into it
Well that certainly isn't consistent then.

Also i don't know if supporter lock would be that bad. Part of the problem with item lock is that most if not all decks are over half items so most of the deck became useless and was easy to have completely bricks for hands. Supporters conversely are usually less then 10 and not only that but decks will most likely have to move away from relying on supporters because of the rules change anyway (to avoid just flat out losing if they have to go first) so should be capable of handling supporter lock (especially one that fails to set up randomly)
 

ShaQuL

@KabutoKingTCG
Member
Well that certainly isn't consistent then.

Also i don't know if supporter lock would be that bad. Part of the problem with item lock is that most if not all decks are over half items so most of the deck became useless and was easy to have completely bricks for hands. Supporters conversely are usually less then 10 and not only that but decks will most likely have to move away from relying on supporters because of the rules change anyway (to avoid just flat out losing if they have to go first) so should be capable of handling supporter lock (especially one that fails to set up randomly)
It isn't consistent no, but I'm sure there are other cards that could be used to make it slightly more consistent. And yes, supporter lock isn't that bad, but the same possibility exists with Omastar, Helix Fossil Omanyte, Bench it and Wally. No need to Switch with that one either. If you have just two Pokemon in play (Active and Omastar), then the opponent will either be limited in Pokemon or the more important Trainer, Items. Some players may even Bench more than 1 Pokemon during set up, never mind in their first turn.
But like you say, it wouldn't be consistent, however, like @Nyora pointed out, it is a possible combo.
 

CrownAxe

Aspiring Trainer
Member
It isn't consistent no, but I'm sure there are other cards that could be used to make it slightly more consistent. And yes, supporter lock isn't that bad, but the same possibility exists with Omastar, Helix Fossil Omanyte, Bench it and Wally. No need to Switch with that one either. If you have just two Pokemon in play (Active and Omastar), then the opponent will either be limited in Pokemon or the more important Trainer, Items. Some players may even Bench more than 1 Pokemon during set up, never mind in their first turn.
But like you say, it wouldn't be consistent, however, like @Nyora pointed out, it is a possible combo.
Both item lock and supporter lock have always been achievable because of attacking pokemon (seismatoad ex, ascension phantrump, limitation sableye) so wally isn't bring anything new to the table that isn't already achievable
 

Otaku

The wise fool?
Member
Please bear with me; I'm trying not to repeat past mistakes, but if I was good at avoiding them, I wouldn't have made them in the first place. XP

Well that certainly isn't consistent then.

Fair point. We never received a Kabuto with the "Prehistoric Call" Ability found on Archen (PLB), Tirtouga (PLB), and Lileep (PLB). Do we have any other effect that can reliably bottom-deck it that is not a Supporter (since the idea is to use Wally that turn) or a turn-ending effect (also a deal breaker)?

The rest of this does not mean I think a reliable T2 Kabutops build would exist if Wally were legal. Just wanted to be clear on that.

Also i don't know if supporter lock would be that bad. Part of the problem with item lock is that most if not all decks are over half items so most of the deck became useless and was easy to have completely bricks for hands. Supporters conversely are usually less then 10 and not only that but decks will most likely have to move away from relying on supporters because of the rules change anyway (to avoid just flat out losing if they have to go first) so should be capable of handling supporter lock (especially one that fails to set up randomly)

I'm pretty sure it would a reliable T2 Supporter lock would only be marginally better than T1 Item-lock. The Expanded Format might be less reliant of Supporters than Standard Format, but not by as much as the reduced Supporter counts suggest. The Expanded Format contains Versus Seeker, and most decks are maxing it out; clearly, this is one of the big tricks that lets them run fewer Supporters. Decks use a lot of Items because they need a lot of Items, and without that early game draw or search Supporter to keep your deck flowing, it won't matter that you are not Item-locked; you'll run out of Items (or other needed cards) quite quickly.

Another aspect off this is the increased amount of potent Supporter-like Abilities. They can be used to get by without a Supporter, but they are also often used to ensure you hit a Supporter (or VS Seeker), because most decks can't go long without a Supporter. Either way, anti-Ability effects are pretty common plays, and two of them (Silent Lab and Power Plant) can be used with Kabutops. In fact, if a T2 Kabutops deck was possible, I'm not sure it would be that much more difficult for it to also get one of those two Stadiums to the field. Even if you can't... a lot of those effects are one-and-done like Dedenne-GX and Shaymin-EX (ROS), so you're still facing the same problem of your deck bricking just a tad later instead of sooner.

As for how decks might change... it is possible they'll adapt to the new rules by not really changing much at all. Strange as it sounds, if the current approach is sufficiently efficient, adjusting your deck to avoid losses due to the lack of T1 Supporter may cause you to win less than if you just staying the course and eating the losses caused by the rule change.
 

cardgjammer

Aspiring Trainer
Member
Please bear with me; I'm trying not to repeat past mistakes, but if I was good at avoiding them, I wouldn't have made them in the first place. XP



Fair point. We never received a Kabuto with the "Prehistoric Call" Ability found on Archen (PLB), Tirtouga (PLB), and Lileep (PLB). Do we have any other effect that can reliably bottom-deck it that is not a Supporter (since the idea is to use Wally that turn) or a turn-ending effect (also a deal breaker)?

The rest of this does not mean I think a reliable T2 Kabutops build would exist if Wally were legal. Just wanted to be clear on that.



I'm pretty sure it would a reliable T2 Supporter lock would only be marginally better than T1 Item-lock. The Expanded Format might be less reliant of Supporters than Standard Format, but not by as much as the reduced Supporter counts suggest. The Expanded Format contains Versus Seeker, and most decks are maxing it out; clearly, this is one of the big tricks that lets them run fewer Supporters. Decks use a lot of Items because they need a lot of Items, and without that early game draw or search Supporter to keep your deck flowing, it won't matter that you are not Item-locked; you'll run out of Items (or other needed cards) quite quickly.

Another aspect off this is the increased amount of potent Supporter-like Abilities. They can be used to get by without a Supporter, but they are also often used to ensure you hit a Supporter (or VS Seeker), because most decks can't go long without a Supporter. Either way, anti-Ability effects are pretty common plays, and two of them (Silent Lab and Power Plant) can be used with Kabutops. In fact, if a T2 Kabutops deck was possible, I'm not sure it would be that much more difficult for it to also get one of those two Stadiums to the field. Even if you can't... a lot of those effects are one-and-done like Dedenne-GX and Shaymin-EX (ROS), so you're still facing the same problem of your deck bricking just a tad later instead of sooner.

As for how decks might change... it is possible they'll adapt to the new rules by not really changing much at all. Strange as it sounds, if the current approach is sufficiently efficient, adjusting your deck to avoid losses due to the lack of T1 Supporter may cause you to win less than if you just staying the course and eating the losses caused by the rule change.

Speaking of Lileep, I believe it's impossible to supporter lock on T1, BUT it's still possible to Item lock on T1 if Wally's legal, but only if the first player benches at least three pokemon(or puts four total in play), then, on the opponent's T1(aka T2), the opponent battle compressors lileep first, and Prehistoric calls lileep to deck bottom second, then fossils Lileep onto the bench third, uses Wally fourth, then attaches a Grass fifth, then uses Lifesplosion to get Omastar out of deck sixth, and that's the ONLY way to lock an opponent out of using any category of Trainers on either side's first or second turn in today's Expanded...

But with so little amounts of people playing THAT Cradily these days...
 
Last edited:
Top