Zoroark, Zorua from “Night Wanderer”

[Charmaster:)]

Pokemon typically separates ex/V for balance purposes and futureproofing.

It's proofed to specifically not hit targets in the future. How did the Rule Box addition make Shamin EX overpowered? It was broke to begin with. This can also protect formats immediately after Zoroark- it is a late gen mon, so it's not gonna be very long before new rule box mons exist which zoroark may not be able to hit.

I agree that Yaginku is an expert on game design, but if someone had designed a card that was only meant to punish multi prizers but could also punish a deck full of, say, the next generation of BREAK or Prism Star Pokémon (Single prize rule box Pokémon which you can run multiple of (Even if not more than one of each) in your deck), it would definitely make me sad. Granted, an attack that damages multiple Pokémon would be more likely to produce grief in my heart than Phantom Jack (An Urshifu VMAX or Starmie BREAK for Rulebox Pokémon would be heartbreaking in an era where Prism Star toolboxes could be a thing), but a wording like "Multiprize" is in order, and if Pokémon doesn't want to use a wording, they should continue to maintain [Insert the two most recent multi prize mechanics] as a wording convention even if they print more cards with "Rule Box."

Yaginku is probably referring to how the lack of a "rule box" wording led to Scoop Up Net breaking Shaymin EX.

 

[Yaginku]

Let us assume the opponet has a full bench in addition to an active Pokémon. Now let us assume four Pokemon are either Pokémon V or Pokémon ex and the active Pokémon is a HP 330 Pokémon ex. The remaining Pokémon consist of Radiant Greninja - who has a rule box - and Bibarel or another non-rule box Pokémon. In this scenario Zoroark hits for 240 damage, which is far off from a ohko. If Zoroark would count all rule-box Pokémon it would hit for 300 in the same scenario, which could yield a ohko with Kiéran increasing the damage output.

Thus, whether Radiant Pokßemon count toward Zoroark's damage can actually matter. In addition Pokemon may not want Zoroark as a counter to the next two- or thress-prize Pokémon they introduce after Pokémon ex. The RR cards such as ex and V sell booster boxes after all .

No I get that, I just fail to see how it would make this card overpowered. Especially when it's based on your opponent's choices, not yours.

How did the Rule Box addition make Shamin EX overpowered?

I was addressing how the failure to backwards-proof and future-proof a card like Scoop Up Net let to disastrous consequences. Then Pokémon Labs created "Rule Box", but have a hard time sticking to it.

the answer to the question of "why don't they use a much broader umbrella term for this attack than the more specific one" is quite simply that they wanted to use more specific targets for the effect instead of the broader umbrella term. it isn't a failing or a mistake when the card R&D make a decision to not use the broadest or most infinitely convenient effect text on a card, in fact. it's probably on purpose, and coming to understand why one might make such a decision on purpose or even, god forbid, why every card revealed might not be the most powerful or open-ended possible version of itself one can imagine is probably going to help ground and strengthen your "game designer" perspective going forward.

This is a lot of condescending words to use when being completely wrong.
If this card was specifically an ex-hate card - that's fine, we had a ton of these over the decades. But Pokémon Labs is adamant of using "current rulebox gimmick and previous rulebox gimmick" in the text of their attacks and many effects. On one hand, it says "we are aware that this might hit targets from the previous generation", yet they won't use a label they've specifically made for these types of cards exactly because of the problems that can arise while not using it.
When it comes to actual reasons for why they might have done it, there's a few:
a) They might consider "Rule box" to be confusing for new players and want to limit its usage to situations where it's absolutely necessary.
b) They purposefully don't want to keep to a consistent design, to make sure future cards get a power boost when they escape all effects oppressing current cards.
c) They just don't care and are applying rules randomly.
The issue here, these aren't great reasons. Consistent usage of terms leads to consistent design. I don't like cards suddenly losing power when a new set of cards is introduced that get to dodge that effect.

 

[Alex Hesketh]

No I get that, I just fail to see how it would make this card overpowered. Especially when it's based on your opponent's choices, not yours.

I was addressing how the failure to backwards-proof and future-proof a card like Scoop Up Net let to disastrous consequences. Then Pokémon Labs created "Rule Box", but have a hard time sticking to it.

This is a lot of condescending words to use when being completely wrong.
If this card was specifically an ex-hate card - that's fine, we had a ton of these over the decades. But Pokémon Labs is adamant of using "current rulebox gimmick and previous rulebox gimmick" in the text of their attacks and many effects. On one hand, it says "we are aware that this might hit targets from the previous generation", yet they won't use a label they've specifically made for these types of cards exactly because of the problems that can arise while not using it.
When it comes to actual reasons for why they might have done it, there's a few:
a) They might consider "Rule box" to be confusing for new players and want to limit its usage to situations where it's absolutely necessary.
b) They purposefully don't want to keep to a consistent design, to make sure future cards get a power boost when they escape all effects oppressing current cards.
c) They just don't care and are applying rules randomly.
The issue here, these aren't great reasons. Consistent usage of terms leads to consistent design. I don't like cards suddenly losing power when a new set of cards is introduced that get to dodge that effect.

a and c are highly unlikely. You might not like their choices, that doesn’t make the designers children who can’t do their work.

 

[LOTTEN]

If this card was specifically an ex-hate card - that's fine, we had a ton of these over the decades. But Pokémon Labs is adamant of using "current rulebox gimmick and previous rulebox gimmick" in the text of their attacks and many effects. On one hand, it says "we are aware that this might hit targets from the previous generation", yet they won't use a label they've specifically made for these types of cards exactly because of the problems that can arise while not using it.

"opponent’s Pokémon ex and Pokémon V" is the label they specifically made for this type of card and what targets they want it to affect, which is why they are using it.

 

[Nyora]

I agree that Yaginku is an expert on game design, but if someone had designed a card that was only meant to punish multi prizers but could also punish a deck full of, say, the next generation of BREAK or Prism Star Pokémon (Single prize rule box Pokémon which you can run multiple of (Even if not more than one of each) in your deck), it would definitely make me sad. Granted, an attack that damages multiple Pokémon would be more likely to produce grief in my heart than Phantom Jack (An Urshifu VMAX or Starmie BREAK for Rulebox Pokémon would be heartbreaking in an era where Prism Star toolboxes could be a thing), but a wording like "Multiprize" is in order, and if Pokémon doesn't want to use a wording, they should continue to maintain [Insert the two most recent multi prize mechanics] as a wording convention even if they print more cards with "Rule Box."

Yaginku is probably referring to how the lack of a "rule box" wording led to Scoop Up Net breaking Shaymin EX.

If they did start using Multiprize, they'd still use Pokemon ex, Pokemon V anyway.

I was addressing how the failure to backwards-proof and future-proof a card like Scoop Up Net let to disastrous consequences. Then Pokémon Labs created "Rule Box", but have a hard time sticking to it.

Oh yea it definitely did hurt them long run. Idt they really have a hard time sticking to it though. A lot of, if not all of the effects which use Rule Box are the ones which would be concerning. Pokemon ex, Pokemon V, etc. are typically used for numbers specifically as they're a lot more meant for their particular meta. Again, just a futureproofing method and it also can serve to make metas feel more immediately different by "rotating out" certain cards earlier.

 

[Dark Espeon]

No I get that, I just fail to see how it would make this card overpowered. Especially when it's based on your opponent's choices, not yours.

I was addressing how the failure to backwards-proof and future-proof a card like Scoop Up Net let to disastrous consequences. Then Pokémon Labs created "Rule Box", but have a hard time sticking to it.

This is a lot of condescending words to use when being completely wrong.
If this card was specifically an ex-hate card - that's fine, we had a ton of these over the decades. But Pokémon Labs is adamant of using "current rulebox gimmick and previous rulebox gimmick" in the text of their attacks and many effects. On one hand, it says "we are aware that this might hit targets from the previous generation", yet they won't use a label they've specifically made for these types of cards exactly because of the problems that can arise while not using it.
When it comes to actual reasons for why they might have done it, there's a few:
a) They might consider "Rule box" to be confusing for new players and want to limit its usage to situations where it's absolutely necessary.
b) They purposefully don't want to keep to a consistent design, to make sure future cards get a power boost when they escape all effects oppressing current cards.
c) They just don't care and are applying rules randomly.
The issue here, these aren't great reasons. Consistent usage of terms leads to consistent design. I don't like cards suddenly losing power when a new set of cards is introduced that get to dodge that effect.

I do see your concern. It is based on the premise that the compüany and we want a format like expnded that has an unlimited card pool that dates back to the beginning of the game. This a quite tricky and complicated to achieve since one would need to test a lot more combos than in a standard format that sticks to a certain number of recent sets and in essence ditches all the older sets. Thinking ahead in the future likewise is more difficult and tricky than it seems since it would require a rather lenghty long-term plan on what mechanics the company wants to use in future sets. Not sure if plans for future sets are that far reaching and take more than one to two years into account. Being more conservative with card design seems easier and may have a better "cost-benefit"-ratio but I am not the company who designs these cards and it is hard to tell whether a card will be broklen in the future without any idea on what cards we will recieve in the future.

 

[LOTTEN]

If they did start using Multiprize, they'd still use Pokemon ex, Pokemon V anyway.

Oh yea it definitely did hurt them long run. Idt they really have a hard time sticking to it though. A lot of, if not all of the effects which use Rule Box are the ones which would be concerning. Pokemon ex, Pokemon V, etc. are typically used for numbers specifically as they're a lot more meant for their particular meta. Again, just a futureproofing method and it also can serve to make metas feel more immediately different by "rotating out" certain cards earlier.

what one has to keep in mind (in addition to the especially pertinent reminder by Charmaster of potential single prize rulebox card types in the vein of BREAK, LV.X, or Prism Star making a return) is that not having an entire, established stable of umbrella counterplay cards to any brand new rulebox mechanic before it's even gotten out of the gate might actually be desirable. new card types not being immediately affected by any and all old card type hate that exists in a format is, if i may be so bold as to suggest, maybe a good thing

 

[Yaginku]

a and c are highly unlikely.

"A" actually would be the most likely, especially if it was a western studio. Clarity is a big part of communicating information and it's not uncommon for players to be confused by "Rule box", especially when it comes to cards like Radiants. The main target for this game are children, after all.
"C" is hyperbolic, but it wouldn't be the first time, nor it would be impossible to imagine. Pokemon could print actual gibberish on cards and still sell a ton of them. The sole reason we have the term "Rule box" is because they made it hard for themselves to find a consistent label for these cards, as they wanted new cards to have a new, exciting name.

"opponent’s Pokémon ex and Pokémon V" is the label they specifically made for this type of card and what targets they want it to affect, which is why they are using it.

So you believe it's "C". Got it.

I do see your concern. It is based on the premise that the compüany and we want a format like expnded that has an unlimited card pool that dates back to the beginning of the game.

Not exactly. There are two main issues with not using the "Rule box" wording where appropriate. The first one is that the wording was specifically created to avoid issues with including or excluding certain cards. They wanted these effects to apply consistently in a game where they had trouble with being consistent. Secondly, it makes the cards flip in power levels when new gimmicks are introduced. Imagine if Path to the Peak said "Pokemon-GX or Pokemon V" and then we've got "Path of the Meek" that said "Pokemon V and Pokemon ex". They actually used to do that quite often to have the ability to print the same (or similar) card multiple times.
It's similar to not unifying Hau/Hop/Nemona under a single name how they did it with Prof Research and Boss's Orders, except nobody really plays Nemona. It's coming up with solutions to burning problems, but never taking them to their logical conclusions.

 

[ZekromFan]

as unlikely as it is (sadly) i would really prefer if lowercase-ex weren't retired for a much longer time because they're inevitably going to be retired in favor of uppercase-EX-styled fully-evolved big basics again, which we are almost finally rid of (again).

Agree with you totally. I'm so happy we got rid off big basic EXs and never want those back. I love these exs to be stage 1 and stage 2 and not always just basics

 

[Charmaster:)]

I do see your concern. It is based on the premise that the compüany and we want a format like expnded that has an unlimited card pool that dates back to the beginning of the game. This a quite tricky and complicated to achieve since one would need to test a lot more combos than in a standard format that sticks to a certain number of recent sets and in essence ditches all the older sets. Thinking ahead in the future likewise is more difficult and tricky than it seems since it would require a rather lenghty long-term plan on what mechanics the company wants to use in future sets. Not sure if plans for future sets are that far reaching and take more than one to two years into account. Being more conservative with card design seems easier and may have a better "cost-benefit"-ratio but I am not the company who designs these cards and it is hard to tell whether a card will be broklen in the future without any idea on what cards we will recieve in the future.

I'm glad to see the discussion is progressing, and this is a well-thought-out reply. I would like to add a few more points. First, designing cards like Zoroark to hold on longer in an Expanded setting would be a good goal to aim for, but it should be kept in mind that these cards will also fall off during their legality if they use the old wording. Since Zoroark isn't that playable, a better example to use would be Salamence EX.

Spoiler: Salamence EX

Salamence EX was printed in the United States on November 21, 2016, one of the last EX Pokémon printed. It found its niche as a tech attacker in Darkrai EX/Giratina EX because it did more damage for each Pokémon EX your opponent had in play. In the Primal Clash through Sun and Moon format, there were still enough EX's for it to have some value, and Darkrai Giratina was still a strong deck. When Guardians Rising released, though, Darkrai EX/Giratina EX dropped Salamence EX due to the far higher GX presence and began using Dragonair as additional Energy acceleration (I guess because Altar of the Moone lets you retreat it for free afterwards). Salamence EX was used for two formats. Had its wording said "Multiprize"/"Rule Box" instead of "EX," it could have been a valuable tech in Ho-Oh/Salazzle right up to its rotation, with Salamence EX doing heavy damage in the early game and Salazzle GX doing heavy damage in the late game.

The other point I would like to mention is that the Expanded format of old was relatively light on bans (Probably lighter than Magic the Gathering or Yu-Gi-Oh, though I would need someone who is familiar with those games to verify), with cards being banned only when they were toxic (A deck that consistently keeps your opponent from playing if you win the opening coin flip), as opposed to when they were just gatekeeping most viable decks. The Expanded ban list would arguably have to be longer before Expanded could see as much deck variety as JustInBasil's Eternal format (an Unlimited Format with a custom ban list).

I hope this helps further the discussion.

 

[Chaosbeat]

This is a lot of arguing on a post about such a cute illustration art.

 

[beatbox2000]

They just don't want it to hit Radiant Pokemon, that's why they worded it that way.

This argument is pointless.

 

[Grim Thoughts]

The art on Zoroark is extremely awesome, wish it was an IR

 

[sonicjms]

as unlikely as it is (sadly) i would really prefer if lowercase-ex weren't retired for a much longer time because they're inevitably going to be retired in favor of uppercase-EX-styled fully-evolved big basics again, which we are almost finally rid of (again).

I'd actually say it's not that likely that ex are retired soon, my theory is that after 20 years of experimenting with multiprize mechanics, ex was likely brought back because it's versitile, 2 prizes can be any stage, it has no special mechanic like GX Pokemon and as seen with Tera ex Pokemon it can be easily expanded upon. If they want a basic two prizer to evolve they could easily print an ex that evolves from another ex and they can put a box on the Pokemon if they want it to be special in some way.

 

[Alex Hesketh]

"A" actually would be the most likely, especially if it was a western studio. Clarity is a big part of communicating information and it's not uncommon for players to be confused by "Rule box", especially when it comes to cards like Radiants. The main target for this game are children, after all.
"C" is hyperbolic, but it wouldn't be the first time, nor it would be impossible to imagine. Pokemon could print actual gibberish on cards and still sell a ton of them. The sole reason we have the term "Rule box" is because they made it hard for themselves to find a consistent label for these cards, as they wanted new cards to have a new, exciting name.

It seems like the one struggling with the term Rule box is you not gonna lie. Do not insult the kids intelligence it really isnt the hardest concept to grasp. Cards that have "stop effects of attacks" or "ignore any effects on your opponent's Active Pokémon" seem to be harder for players to understand for any age from what Ive personally have seen. Idk its just hard to understand that Zoroark and Lana for example, these are very deliberate choices, I just dont feel theres a randomness to it, they choose what they think is best, again, wether you agree or not it was the best and regardless of their motive at large

 

[sonicjms]

It's similar to not unifying Hau/Hop/Nemona under a single name how they did it with Prof Research and Boss's Orders, except nobody really plays Nemona. It's coming up with solutions to burning problems, but never taking them to their logical conclusions.

I think the problem being fixed here is different than what you're implying it is, I would say that the problem Research/Boss's Orders fixes is that the designers want to keep printing these powerful effects, keep them having relevant characters but still limit the player to 4 copies. The draw 3 cards aren't powerful enough to warrant it being a problem if someone wants to run 8 or even 16 of them in a deck and doesn't limit what character or characters they can throw onto the card so giving it the Research trestment would unnecessarily limit design for both players and Labs. Sometimes the card is given to the main rival, sometimes its a given regions cast like the Friends in variants, sometimes its given to Terino.

 

[LostSalamence]

REND is truely a world-class addition to the illustrating artists

 

[LOTTEN]

I'd actually say it's not that likely that ex are retired soon, my theory is that after 20 years of experimenting with multiprize mechanics, ex was likely brought back because it's versitile, 2 prizes can be any stage, it has no special mechanic like GX Pokemon and as seen with Tera ex Pokemon it can be easily expanded upon. If they want a basic two prizer to evolve they could easily print an ex that evolves from another ex and they can put a box on the Pokemon if they want it to be special in some way.

it's possible, and i'd definitely like it to be what happens. "megas come back more mechanically analogous to LV.X or BREAK (especially if it means they're single prize)" is definitely on my wishlist.

So you believe it's "C". Got it.

No, I believe that the supposed "rules" are made up by an outside observer in order to say they are being broken or disregarded. There is no reason to assume that the codification of "with a Rule Box" means that ever using narrower targets for card effects is a failure of design or "inconsistent". It would only appear as inconsistent if you go into it with a set of assumptions as to what that was for, and dictate that they're failing to live up to assumptions you created.

 

[Yaginku]

Idk its just hard to understand that Zoroark and Lana for example

Ignoring the yapping before, Lana is actually a good example since the card right before it - Kieran - uses "your opponent’s Active Pokémon ex or Active Pokémon V". The difference between these cards is - Lana could easily gain a massive amount of power once it's allowed to hit future Rule Boxes, while Kieran will lose power once future Rule Boxes come out. Pokemon developers are fine with cards losing power, since they get to upsell future cards this way.

No, I believe that the supposed "rules" are made up by an outside observer in order to say they are being broken or disregarded.

If you believe good design is just made up, that is your prerogative.

I think the problem being fixed here is different than what you're implying it is

It's two problems, there's "a" problem and "the" problem. "A" problem is players had the ability to play multiple Profs/Bosses in a single deck. "The" problem was Pokemon wanting to print the same effect under different names. So a new naming convention (which was a good idea) was a solution to "the" problem, but was only applied to cards that created "a" problem.
This discussion is ultimately pointless, because none of the affected cards is going to make the game worse. I just commented on a design inconsistency and a lot of people wanted to assume there's some "hidden reason" why Pokemon Labs chose this wording.

 

[LOTTEN]

If you believe good design is just made up, that is your prerogative.

Frequently the loudest preachers of "good" and "bad" game design are simply those who are especially confident in their narrow view of game design, enough to try and tell others their opinions are instead the fact of the matter. Not to be super reductive about it all, but this especially is an entirely subjective realm and you should avoid being too sure that your own perspective is the only one that's able to be correct. Entertain that there aren't actually a set of exclusively correct or incorrect outcomes to a particular problem.