Nine Surprising Changes Announced for the PTCG: Fairy Pokemon Dropped!

Otaku

The wise fool?
Member
Reading responses from Rcxd9999, @Yaginku @snoopy369 and @Wailord's Pokemon I realized I needed to clarify or explain a few things. I may also have to edit my earlier comment, because I phrased some stuff really bad. >_< I'll mostly just be quoting Rcxd9999, to avoid this post being even more massive than it already wound up being: if anyone thinks I missed something they said, just let me know.

1. Expanded is quite good but due to the massive amount of playable card and multitude of ever increasing combinations, meta problems can arise with newer cards working with older cards in ways that weren't anticipated, requiring a card be banned or errataed. But to Pokemon's credit, expanded works and only has a minimal ban list. If you want to see what hell on earth looks like, look at Yugioh, which is entirely expanded and has a massive ban list as well as a limited list.

Yeah, I don't think I said what I actually meant. XP Basically, there are a bunch of things like my #6 point, where it is clear they just weren't thinking far enough ahead before introducing or dropping a mechanic.

2. I personally think further nerfing for T1 start is a good thing, but we have yet to see it in a competitive meta just yet, so can't say much about it's effects just yet.

I'll also be addressing what @Wailord's Pokemon said.

Long time players have been through similar things before, hence expecting more or less the same outcome. This will be our fifth set of T1 rules, if we don't sweat very minor differences and count repeats as a single instance. All were supposed to bring balance to the game, and but they've failed four times before. They're also forcing us into a troubling T1 situation, similar to a past one they had to abandon. Put it all together, and I don't see much hope of it working out how they think it will. =/

3. Agreed. At the moment entire decks can be locked out of the meta simply because they're weak against another deck, not because that deck plays better. If weaknesses went back to DP era weaknesses like +10 for evolving basics, +20 for first evolutions and non-evolving Pokemon, +30 for second evolutions and x2 for EX,GX and V Pokemon, I think that would be best.

Again, only quoting one person, but I'll address what Yaginku and snoopy369 said.

It might seem like a double-standard, pointing out what hasn't worked in the past with respect to one thing (losing a T1 action) versus another (Weakness). I do not think returning to the "variable Weakness" of Gen IV is a good idea, because it didn't work. Please understand, I've been wanting to see this change for at least a few years now; before the official change that was coming to Resistance, it was even going to make things simple; +20 for Weakness, -20 for Resistance.

Some Pokémon are currently only balanced out by damage doubling Weakness. I'm not suggesting errata for the older cards; just like all the other times Weakness/Resistance has changed, older cards use the rules printed on them. So existing cards where part of what balances (or is supposed to balance) their HP scores is how their Weakness can be exploited, that stays the same. New cards just shouldn't rely on this method of balance, because it honestly isn't all that balanced.

Oh, and Yaginku? I actually agree with you on how Weaknesses found on Pokémon within a Type ought to be more diversified; designing the game so that Type-matching grants only a modest bonus actually lends to that. Being stuck with a mono-Type deck and all the same Weakness doesn't seem right... and neither does being able to score crazy good advantage because your deck could splash in the right off-Type attacker. I'm not doing away with Weakness and Resistance all together but I am trying to make their use more... technical.

4. I think the types in the TCG are fine as it is. Not particularly sure why they dropped Fairy type, maybe to reduce the number of cards printed, I don't know, but the TCG definitely can't copy the videogame types, even if there was only singular types, since rock and grass types have 5 weaknesses, and some might have up to 7, if there were dual types. I can easily imagine how much card space would be used just for the weakness area.

Too many Types makes things awkward for Type representation in sets; the Limited Format isn't as big in Pokémon as it is in some other games... and part of that is because there are so many Types that need to be squeezed into a set. However, if it makes things easier for PCL to adapt from the video games - because they do take inspiration from them - I'm okay sacrificing Limited Format play.

Unfortunately, I lost my spreadsheets where I went through various Type combinations, to see how much "error" was created from combining certain Types, versus how much there would be if each VG Type was a TCG Type. This was before the Fairy Type was a thing as well... but what I discovered was things got wonkiest when you tried to squish more than two Types together, and that Poison Types would work best in the Darkness Type while the Rock Type belonged with Steel Types. I never got around to seeing how it would affect actual Pokémon Type representation but... well... at a glance, I think it would work out okay, if not quite well.

Merging more Types helps by giving the developers less to deal with when designing cards at the macro level. Instead of "Oh man, we gave [insert Type] a boost by allowing it [insert mechanic]... what equivalent to we do for each of the other Types?" Their answer has been to just gloss over most other Types, for the record. Maybe come back and recycle it a few years later. XP Merging the most closely related Types together, to get the game down to a lower official Type count, might help with this.

Either approach lends itself to "correcting" something Yaginku said:

It's not like Types in Pokemon are like Colors in Magic, with their own set identities and a very rigid Color Wheel - more often than not, Pokemon Types are allowed to do whatever they want. They could literally add every Pokemon Type into the card game and it wouldn't have a huge effect - maybe splashing would be a bit harder, but that's it.

Okay, back to Rcxd999:

7. I think the new phase name might be used on cards down the line for effects but otherwise, not sure why it needed a name change either.

Probably for that reason.

9. The "once during your turn" sticking in the card text is a good thing because even if abilities were once a turn unless stated otherwise, those 4 words minimise confusion, especially for younger and/or newer players.

I think it does more harm than good but I don't think it does much harm or good, so okay. XD

One more from snoopy369:

Well, let's see what happens, perhaps? It might end up with a bit more "luck" introduced, certainly, but I for one would like to see the luck of the first coinflip be minimized; if going first worries you that much, then go second!
...what if your opponent wins the coin flip so you still don't get to choose?

I think going second does need a small change to help it compete with going first, but I'd rather do it through managing the pacing of the game coupled with tweaking the Evolution rules. Instead of no evolving T1, make it so that Pokémon can only manually evolve if they were in play during other player's last turn. So nothing can manually evolve T1, but anything from pre-game set up or that your opponent had you Bench T1 can be evolved T2 (Player 2's first turn).
 
Last edited:

GM DracLord

Shadow of Death
Member
Kinda saw the Fairy change coming with its absence from the Energy Search art and how long they were taking to reveal a new Fairy card.

With all these type changes happening at once, they should've moved Rock to Metal.
I wondering why the S promo were missing the pinkish type..
Gardevoir now going back to psychic type..

No pink rapidash,

Sylveon now need to share espeon's type..
 

Otaku

The wise fool?
Member
Honestly, I wish the Dragon-type got axed instead of the Fairy-type. At least Fairy has its own Basic energy.

That might be why Fairy had to go? Probably not, as I'm sure they just would have shifted their Energy requirements if that was the case, but worth asking.
 

CMP

Now with 400% more Neo!
Member
When Fairy was revealed as a new type years ago, Psychic was one of the TCG types I felt Fairy Pokémon would best fit in (if they didn’t get their own TCG type). An interesting change, for sure, as is the move of Poison types to Darkness. It makes sense, though, as Psychic would become pretty bloated otherwise.

Still, it’ll be fun to see some early gen Poison types as Darkness TCG types — from Grass to Psychic to Darkness.
 

OVERGRO

Pokemon is lyfe.
Member
Another thing I wanted to mention was the T1 no Supporter rule. It's fine, we'll see how it plays out. Now the player going second will have the chance to both set up and attack, which might make a little too imbalanced, but hey, we'll see.

But I feel like, in order to give non-V decks a shot, this rule change was a huge missed opportunity to make it such that one could evolve in their first turn, a much needed rule that would help speed up Evolution decks just a little to help make them that tiny bit more viable. Too bad, really.

Edit: Also re: Fairy moving to Psychic: Now that Poison types are represented by Darkness, Psychic-type Fairy Pokemon will be able to have the same weakness in card form as their Psychic/Ghost counterparts. Perhaps this was one of the motivations behind moving Poison under the umbrella of the Darkness-type?
 

Frost

Ice/Fairy Stan Account
Member
Of course it was, but it's still dumb. Now Fairy cards will go from their own type that resisted Darkness to sharing a type with Psychic and now being weak to Darkness because the latter has absorbed Poison. I really don't like any of the Gen 8 type changes, they're pretty unintuitive and of course I'm annoyed that my favorite type is going to be the first type to get absorbed into a different one.

The TCG types were always messy, but this just restructures the mess and confuses longtime followers like me. Fighting and Psychic are still huge because they still represent three VG types. Lightning, Metal and Fire are still tiny since they only represent one smaller VG type each. Metal now resists Grass again even though logically it should now resist Darkness (due to Poison). Dragon is now an island unto itself. I hate it all.
 

dom

Aspiring Trainer
Member
so is there any chance they'll introduce a dragon basic energy?...it personally bugs me that it doesn't have one...from a displaying my collection perspective.
 

signofzeta

Aspiring Trainer
Member
so is there any chance they'll introduce a dragon basic energy?...it personally bugs me that it doesn't have one...from a displaying my collection perspective.

It also bugs me that they don't have a basic colorless energy.

In all seriousness, the game needs less basic energy types, not more, and basic energy is meant for gameplay purposes, not collection purposes.

One of the features of Dragon types is that it requires 2 different basic energy types to power their attacks, and as such, it is only weak against other Pokemon that require 2 different basic energy types to power their attacks, as such, Dragons are weak against Dragon. That is how it should be and how it always should be. Then TCPi did something dumb, and introduced the Fairy type, and thus have Dragon cards be weak to Fairy, a type that requires one type of energy to power its attacks, much like 8 other types in the game. It also seems to me that Dragon now require one type of energy per attack, such that one attack requires one type of energy, and the other requires the other type. All dragons should always have 2 different energies to power the same attack. That is their feature, and the reward for playing Dragons, and such, try to run 2 different energy types in your deck is that it has no weakness other than to itself.

Remember if you add basic Dragon Energy for dragon types, you are taking the green Grass, re Fire, blue Water, yellow Lightning, purple Psychic, brown/orange Fighting, black Darkness, or silver Metal, and painting it gold, and the whole fairy type back in XY was a bad idea as well.

What the game needs are types that have strengths and weaknesses, not against other types, but in terms of gameplay. Each type must be unique gameplay wise.
 
Last edited:

N's Rhyperior

Pokebeach's The Rhyperior = YouTube's N
Member
So, what weakness will the new Fairy types which is now as Psychic types in the TCG, Metal or Darkness? If they continue the trend of P types of having Darkness weakness and Fighting Weakness, well, P is the worst typing to have in terms of hitting weakness. It can only hit Fighting types, except cards prior to SWSH. Like L, not a great type until Water regains its L weakness and recently good tricks.
 

DMYSYS

DUMMY SYSTEM
Member
Rolling Fairy into Psychic is incredibly non-aesthetic. I would've preferred to see them lumped back in with Normal if at all.
 

Chicken008

Aspiring Trainer
Member
someone plz help why is fairy removed
why is dark weak to grass?
things are getting weird the changes are weird
uwu
I assume they are removing the Fairy type to make the game more balanced? We wont know until more cards are released.
And Dark types are weak to Bug types in the video games, and since Bug types are Grass types in the card game, Dark has a new weakness.
 

signofzeta

Aspiring Trainer
Member
If I had my way, I would just scrap the entire system and redo it.

There are 18 video game types.

Normal will be colorless, which requires any type of energy to power its attacks.
Dragon will be multicolor (gold), which always requires 2 or more energy types to power one attack.
The remaining 16 types will be paired up.

Each pair requires its own energy card. The energies have its own name, not Grass Energy, or Bug energy. If a type requires a certain type of energy, it has some unique traits that another pair couldn't do, like make opponents discard cards would be a unique attack or ability exclusive to the two types that uses that one specific energy.

When it comes to weaknesses and resistances, each pokemon type is counted separately, even if they share the same energy type.

At least this way the TCG stays truer to the video games, without having to make the game unplayable just because all the 18 types of pokemon requires its own energy, and thus diluting the card pool.

So imagine this. You have actual Water type Pokemon cards, and actual Ice type Pokemon cards, both of which uses Blue energy. Only these two types uses Blue energy, formerly Water energy.

Each Pokemon have multi weaknesses. It is no longer one type weakness. Grass Pokemon, for example, can resist water pokemon, but be weak to ice pokemon, both of which share the same energy. Because the Pokemon Card themselves are 2 different types, this could work, even if they both use the same energy type.

If we have 1 pokemon type that uses 2 different energy types, like Dragon, why can't we have 1 energy type powering attacks for 2 different Pokemon types?
 
Last edited:

Otaku

The wise fool?
Member
If we're entertaining such notions in this thread, yeah, I'd redo the Type distributions as well. Not too different from @signofzeta

Option 1: Every VG Type is a TCG Type but most of those Pokémon Types would share Energy Types. I won't hazard a guess as to what Types should share what, because it really would become complicated; those that share Energy would be better able to work together.

Option 2: Every TCG Type contains no more than two VG Types. Probably look something like:
  • Colorless = Flying, Normal
  • Darkness = Dark, Poison
  • Fighting = Fighting, Ground
  • Grass = Bug, Grass
  • Metal = Rock, Steel
  • Mythic = Dragon, Fairy
  • Psychic = Ghost, Psychic
  • Sparking = Fire, Lightning
  • Water = Ice, Water
No basic Energy would exist for Colorless or Mythic Types; they would operate as they do now except VG Fairy Types would follow VG Dragon Types' lead and use two different Energy Types. I think this set up reasonably preserves Type interactions, at least as good as we have now... but that's a guess; I haven't actually run the numbers. "Mythic" and "Sparking" are just placeholders; I'm open to better names. I do think Mythic is okay, but Sparking is probably because I was watching a Dragon Ball related video not long ago. XD If possible, I'd like the actual colors associated with the Types to match up with the traditional rainbow, since that is such a universal thing. Though Colorless and Darkness would use their current color schemes; that way seven other colors is enough.
 

Otaku

The wise fool?
Member
Quick reminder for everyone, prompted by what @Grass-Type Farm Owner just said:

1) "Never say never": the powers-that-be reverse decisions all the time. It is entirely possible the Fairy Type could return in the future. Probably not during the Sword & Shield-era, but who knows down the line. ;)

2) Technically, we are still getting "Fairy Versions" of cards. It is just that they'll be TCG Psychic Types. What makes a Fairy (Psychic Type) Primarina unlikely is that, as the final Stage of Evolution for Gen VII starter, it probably will be lucky to receive any Gen VIII cards. ^^'

Which doesn't mean folks cannot lament such things; I just wanted to make sure it was all put into perspective. I mean, it is probably more on topic than I've been. XP
 
Top