They did what?

It was part of their rebalancing, basically trying to even everything out, and rather than introducing another type and making it more complicated, they just got rid of Fairy.

>>56851265
no specific reason, they just did
as for the most likely reason
nobody fucking likes fairy type

>>56851265
Pointless because it's only super effective against Dragon, which was reworked into a gimmick type

Because it and Dragon were functionally useless. For some reason instead of also getting rid of Dragon, they worked it into a weird ass gimmick and just got rid of Fairy all together.

>>56851265
The only thing Fairy was strong against was Dragon.

Dragon was changed into a gimmick type that has no weaknesses or resistances. Ergo, Fairy was now useless, and so it was merged into the Psychic type. And to maintain balance, Poison types were taken out of the Psychic type and put into the Dark type.

>>56851296
>>56851315
>gimmick type
explain this to me

File: SWSH35_EN_34[1].png (51 KB, 245x342)

51 KB PNG

>>56851265
Before Poison were Grass, then they became dark, now they are with Psychic, can someone explain this mess to me?

So what happens if I bring a fairy card to a match

They beat you with hammers

>>56851288
>>56851296
>gimmick type
Care to explain?

>>56851366
It doesn't have energy or weakness and resistance. It uses other energy types(usually electric and fire/grass). They kind of suck as a type but have a lot of good mons because of utility and gimmicks.

>>56851392
>Poison moved to Psychic (Gen 4): Durr, purple-colored type
>Poison moved to Darkness (Gen 8): Fairy got annexed to Psychic, leading it to have 4 types represented, thus for balance Poison moved to the more fitting Darkness (which didn't exist in Gen 1) rather than return to Grass
Why didn't Poison move to Darkness in Gen 4 when Darkness finally received basic Energy?

>>56851430
Originally, the Dragon type didn't exist in the TCG. Normal, Flying, and Dragon types were all Colorless type.

Then in Gen 5, Dragon got its own type.

Then in Gen 8, in order to rebalance the game, Dragon was changed to have no weaknesses or resistances and thus Fairy, which was only super effective against Dragon, had no reason to exist anymore.

>>56851430
>>56851581
also of note, they've kind of toyed with getting rid of dragon type multiple times.
They can't seem to decide.

File: 1688916391.jpg (193 KB, 600x800)

193 KB JPG

>>56851581
I liked it when dragons were normal type cards with powerful attacks, but to make that more fair they required energies of various types, like the golden cards of Magic.

Not a real dragon, but this is one of my favorite examples of that mechanic.

Why didn't they just give everything their actual in-game type?

>>56852283
To have an easy avenue to powercreep.

>>56852283
because the card game only has 6+3 types, and would be literally unplayable with 16 separate types of energy.

>With the Sword & Shield expansion, we saw some swapping of traditional types, such as traditional Poison-type Pokémon changing to Darkness types in the Pokémon TCG. What was the primary reason for this, and has it played out as you expected?

>Mr. Nagashima: Making Darkness types weak to Grass and Fighting types has the advantage of dispersing Weaknesses.

Also, the TCG was previously characterized by a rock-paper-scissors relationship between Grass, Fire, and Water types, but that relationship allowed the metagame to progress too quickly. So, with the Sword & Shield Series, we began focusing compatibility around five types: Grass, Fire, Water, Lightning, and Fighting. Darkness types represent a new change, as a type that’s related (via Weakness) to two of those core types. This change opens up a lot of tactical possibilities.

Basically, they rebalanced the game around five "main types"

>Grass: Strong against Fighting (if the Pokemon is a Rock or Ground type) and Darkness (if the Pokemon is a Dark type), weak against Fire
>Fire: Strong against Grass and Metal, weak against Water
>Water: Strong against Fire, weak against Lightning
>Lightning: Strong against Water and all Pokemon that are Flying type in the games regardless of their TCG type (unless it's Fighting), weak against Fighting
>Fighting: Strong against Colorless and Lightning, weak to Psychic

>>56852283
Because that requires more ink all around and they were attempting to compete with MTG and follow their structure in terms of colors and cards. Also because eventually you hit a point where things don't exactly line up perfectly in terms of weakness/resistance/etc.

>>56851581
Pretty sure fairy was introduced in the gen 7 sets and not the gen 8 sets.

>>56852308
Then make dual type energy instead, that way there is only 8 energies, or make triple type energies, or whatever.

File: CelebiStellarCrown4.jpg (1.04 MB, 735x1024)

1.04 MB JPG

>>56852283
For balance reasons

There's only room on a card for one weakness and one resistance

>>56852314
>>56852334
The entire premise of weaknesses is beyond retarded. I get it's Pokemon, but it's stupid as fuck for a card game.

>The last time they printed a card with a Lightning Resistance was 11 years ago

>>56852322
that's effectively what they are.

Psychic is Psychic, and Ghost, and Fairy.
Fighting is rock, ground, and fighting.
Grass is Grass and Bug.
Dark is Dark and Poison.
Water is Water and Ice.
Colorless is Normal and Flying

The only weird ones are:
Fire is just fire.
Lightning is just electric.
Metal is just Steel.
Dragon is just dragon, but it doesn't actually have its own basic energy, it uses a combination of other energies.

>>56852353
Yeah but they should have had all the types available as colors/Pokemon, then have the energies themselves just split into three, such as Psy, Fai, Gho Energy and the art is a trigram of the three colors/symbols.

Also I can't stand that they use the Japanese terms Lightning/Metal, and then they use Colorless instead of Normal. Also Poison is sometimes Grass or Psychic too, sometimes shit is just completely random, but usually yes its Dark these days.

>>56852370
Poison USED to be Grass when the TCG started, then it was changed to Psychic, then it was finally changed to Dark

>>56852337
Yeah, double damage is kinda nutty. Pocket changed this to just amp damage +20

>>56852447
Which is also more consistent with how resistance works

>Weakness means you take double damage
>Resistance just means you take 20 less damage

>>56852447
In DPP there were variable weaknesses on the card - usually basic pokemon that evolved got +10 from their weakness and fully evolved got +30, but for some reason they reverted back from that again.

>>56852340
wait really, that seems a bit messed up considering last I checked they hand out Fighting resistance like candy to Pokemon that would be part Flying in the games.

>>56852585
Look at Toxicroak now that he's Dark. He's also weak to Fighting despite being Fighting type.

they don't need to make fairies now that they got you lmao

>>56852585
Everything went to shit at the start of Sword and Shield
https://pkmncards.com/?s=sudowoodo
>Every Sudowoodo up to that point has had a Water Resistance because haha Squirtbottle
>NOOOOOOOOO, we can't deviate for flavour, he HAS to now have a Grass weakness like the other Rock types.

File: OPBTFO.png (426 KB, 720x509)

426 KB PNG

>>56852625

>YGO is power creeping to hell and back but offering up peak waifu cards but being a mess of a TCG
>MTG is going apeshit with multiverse/crossovers and selling tons of them for novelties sake but still being a decently solid TCG
>Pokemon has to constantly rebalance every 5-7 years, makes a mess of everything, and nobody even bothers playing it and its just a collector and scalper's wet dream

>>56852370
>Also Poison is sometimes Grass or Psychic too, sometimes shit is just completely random, but usually yes its Dark these days.

it's never been more than one energy type.
they just have changed their mind about which one it is multiple times.

>>56852600
what the fuck? poisons aren't weak to fighting OR rock.

>>56852699
Fighting type in the TCG is also Rock and Ground (which Toxicroak is weak to)

>>56852712
Yeah but that's isn't the reason for it. The reason is because Dark Type is weak to Fighting. That's the only reason, and Toxicroak cards are either Fighting or Dark Type.

File: ZapdosSVPPromo157.jpg (149 KB, 868x1212)

149 KB JPG

>>56852585
They also make everything that's a Flying type in the games weak to Lightning, regardless of its TCG type (unless it's Fighting).

So you end up with Zapdos being weak to its own type.

File: cursed.jpg (95 KB, 600x825)

95 KB JPG

>>56852728
unless...

>>56852600
The Fighting weakness should represent Ground in this case, still fitting for Toxicroak.
>>56852641
>The only Fighting type with a Water weakness as of SWSH is a reprint of an HGSS arc
I hate this, but I got one worse.
>all Spiritomb cards prior to SWSH had no Weakness
>Spiritomb lacking a Weakness matched with the games in Gens 4 - 5 and still maintained it even when Fairy was its own type
>starting with SWSH, Spiritomb is now weak to "Bug" Grass if it's "Dark" Darkness and "Dark" Darkness if it's "Ghost" Psychic
Just why?
>>56852766
That's even worse.

>>56852668
As someone who used to play in the league every weekend this always hit me hard. Maybe it's just because of how middle of nowhere we were, but there'd be like 2-4 other regulars and a handful of people who'd show up for a week or two every once in a while. Nobody switched up their deck that often and most people only brought one deck so actually battling each other got kinda old - avoid this person their deck completely resists yours, that kid's easy pickings because they wanted to use all their favorites so they never have enough of the right energy to attack, etc. So even meeting up to play pokemon specifically meant you had a hard time getting anyone to play. Anytime people bought packs or theme decks they'd trade extras but the priority for all of us was filling out the binder. It's a fun game but casual fans never learn to play, you go to a gaming shop and it's just seen as kiddie shit nobody plays so even if people collect they only bring decks for more popular games, if there's dedicated pokemon events it's always the new releases so everyone's just here to buy shit and leave. Tried teaching a few friends but the ones who like playing tabletop stuff aren't into pokemon and the ones who like pokemon won't sit down and play something that isn't mashing buttons more than once or twice before they get bored. It's depressing.

>>56852915
Always been that way anon, I remember events as a kid with the first Base Set release at like Books-a-million and local comic shops back in the day, nothings ever really changed honestly. Especially these days when there are so many options to just play virtually, and even then most will try to avoid that because they're coded like shit.

>>56852721
>Yeah but that's isn't the reason for it.
ice "water" types are weak to steel, not electric.

so actually, I think the ground type weakness is the reason.

>>56852915
i feel like the point where I joined, late Break/early GX meta, was actually really solid and enjoyable.

I'd also say based on the GBC games that Base-Rocket, SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF AN RPG VIDEO GAME, works pretty well.

>>56852956
Yeah, it just sucks that there's no breaking the cycle. I joined the league as soon as my town got one in 2005 since my friends growing up, even the older ones, were only collectors and the only person who even tried to learn to play with me before that was my dad. My sister and best friend joined too but you know how that goes: person joins to hang out with their people, awkwardly plays others when the guy running the league suggests it'll be more fun if everyone played with each other instead of sitting at the same table all the time, maybe lasts a few weeks, quits. Rarely someone would decide they actually like the game and stick with it.

>>56853442
Probably doesn't help too that Pokemon really doesn't try to promote it properly in any real way, that and cards being so rare, its no wonder that they end up with expensive ass prices that's easier to collect, grade, and sell. Not only that, probably doesn't help that their motto was "Gotta Catch'Em/Collect'Em All" basically. Like it's kind of the entire premise of the series as a whole after all.

>>56853081
Glad you had a better league than I did, gives me hope there's a chance I just haven't been in the right place to meet the right people.

>SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF AN RPG VIDEO GAME
This is exactly the problem, the mechanics are fun but the kind of person who will appreciate them is the same kind of person who'd rather spend that time playing magic or warhammer if they're gonna throw money at it. Meanwhile pokemon fans are more likely to like the idea of its world than the actual games and of those who are into games as an actual system of rules and different pieces interacting with each other, most aren't that social or aren't able to maintain a hobby that requires regularly buying cards and meeting up with people so having a campaign of npc battles is a better fit.

Even online, the main appeal is going to be opening packs and collecting the cards over actually playing against other people since it's trying to capitalize on the existing tcg market but sell them the convenience of digital. It does help facilitate players play by eliminating the need to meet in person, but you still have to get people interested in the game and the app in the first place. I've yet to see anything like showdown for the tcg, the ability to just build any deck you want at any time and play is missing because it's a mess to maintain as a fan project and the official ones can't make money if they can't sell you cards so there's no incentive to build it.

Pokemon itself seems to be incompatible with tabletop gaming because it's trying too hard to stay accessible to kids and beginners for it to interest those who have the resources to actually participate, they want both sides to buy cards but in trying to make a game for everyone they wind up appealing to almost no one. Like everything else in this franchise it persists because a lot of people are happy to pay for the brand and all the actual depth takes a backseat to mass marketing.

>>56853471
Lets be fair, nobody really throws money on Warhammer to play it. Most people buy very specific models or armies just for diorama or display purposes at best, and very few even do that. I mean it's not called 40k for no reason. Now people do go hard with MTG and YGO though, but those have really deep competitive scenes.

>>56853490
I work in a print shop and every time new warhammer books release I have about 20-30 people dropping copies off to have the spines cut off and hole punch everything either for spiral binding or for 3-ring binders so they'll stay open flat on the table. At least around here people drop money on warhammer regularly even if it's not the miniatures. The fact this many people in a rural area are willing to pay an extra $10-15 per book to make it less pretty and more functional means they're definitely not just collecting it to sit on a shelf, and the publisher could be making a lot more money if they released copies in a spiral format in the first place. I'm sure these people would be thrilled to make less trips to pick up their stuff, not take the risk of someone fucking it up by cutting too far in and losing some text or the punch tearing pages, AND have the books they play with look as nice as possible while still being more functional than the paperbacks, and plenty of other players who don't do this would find the convenience of books that stay open better worth paying little extra for and it still wouldn't be as expensive as a hard cover copy.

>>56853642
Oh the books sell quite a lot honestly. People love 40k lore.

>>56851288
They should have reworked fairy into a gimmick type as well.

>>56853661
It's definitely not just the lore, if it was nobody would want their brand new books butchered. And it is butchering, full page spreads never line up right and it's not uncommon for the holes to go through words when there's a good 1/4 - 3/4 inch cut out of the margins to avoid the glue from the spine fucking up the machines.

File: Salamence EX Dragon 10.jpg (141 KB, 245x342)

141 KB JPG

>>56852194
The last time dragon Pokemon really felt like dragons was in one of the Advance era sets, where they required multiple type energies like you said, but they also sometimes had two resistances. They didn't always have them, mind, but it was neat. There was an Altaria that resisted both Fighting and Grass.

>>56853761
>multiple resistances with variable values
>text templating for doubles format (!)
had no idea that was a thing. the unexplored design space is wild

>>56851392
The TCG bothers me because they will have so many types grouped into one, but will hardly ever adjust the weaknesses/resistances to match it and make them feel even a little bit different.

>>56854851
Resistances not being relevant is really stupid tbdesu. The only consistent one is Flying types (Colorless) having Fighting Resistance and that's pretty much it. Oh, and some Psychic mons also have Fighting Resistance, because fuck Fighting types I guess lmao

>>56854857
The Pokemon TCG is cool conceptually, but there's so many little design elements that make it not worth playing.

>>56854870
https://limitlesstcg.com/cards?q=resistance%3Afighting&unique=cards
Yeah just checked the amount of mons with Fighting resistance and there's 1435 unique cards spanning different types, compare that to Fire and Dark resistance that's basically inexistent in the current format. I don't even care if it's game accurate, JUST LOOK AT THE ABSURD FUCKING DIFFERENCE. If it's not even gonna be relevant why not just remove it from the game altogether like they did to Fairy type. At least Pocket did that, which is a good step imo.

File: file.png (1.13 MB, 660x920)

1.13 MB PNG

>>56854940
That is fucked. Type matchups are so strange in the TCG, they try to homogenize some things but not others(like anything flying getting the fighting resist). How is Haunter weak to fighting?

File: MEW_141_R_EN.png (681 KB, 736x1024)

681 KB PNG

>>56854963
Because he's considered a Dark type kek
I think Creatures just don't care and just copy paste weaknesses and resistances. Which is weird because they also print cards interacting with it.

File: DachsbunPaldeanFates161.jpg (148 KB, 658x920)

148 KB JPG

>>56854999
They don't even copy/paste all the time. Fairies are still weak to Steel.

>>56854963
>How is Haunter weak to fighting?
I guess its meant to be poison and weak to ground. If it was psychic weak to dark, then it technically would be beaten by poison which it resists in the main games. So its a lose/lose situation. There's tons of examples of things like this.

>>56852668
I thought mtg was powercrept significantly as well

>>56853761
Gen 3 PTCG was the golden age

File: Screenshot_20241105_16571(...).jpg (987 KB, 1080x2340)

987 KB JPG

>>56854940
>fire 23
>dark 173
>fighting 1435
Lol. Okay that is pretty fuckjng retarded lol

File: FBgCA1U.png (450 KB, 1160x2928)

450 KB PNG

>>56854963
>haunter fears the ghost puncher

>>56851265
Maybe we'll get some info in the Pokemon leaks. My best guess is that they wanted to simplify the game. Thematically, Fairy easily could've been put into Psychic. At least with Poison it was pretty obvious why Poison became Dark. Could be for the same reason.

>>56851296
Dragons are special snowflakes. The only reason why they didn't get rid of the typing is probably due to Marketing reasons.

>>56855570
Lmao how did I miss this. I was checking /fit/ in 2015 I think.

File: my-image.png (129 KB, 1140x931)

129 KB PNG

Are there any changes you would make to the current type groupings?

>Colorless: Normal and Flying
>Grass: Grass and Bug
>Fire: Fire
>Water: Water and Ice
>Lightning: Electric
>Fighting: Fighting, Rock, and Ground
>Psychic: Psychic, Ghost, and Fairy
>Darkness: Dark and Poison
>Metal: Steel
>Dragon: Dragon

>>56856100
Everything seems to fit where it should be. Maybe grouping rocks with steel, but that's it.

>>56856100
I want them to do what >>56852370 said. Let pokemon be their regular video game types so we can have nice tcg symbols for all of them and have more nuanced weaknesses and resistances, group energies to reduce the number of cards needed:
>normal, flying, dragon
>grass, bug, poison
>fire, electric, fairy
>water, ice, steel
>fighting, rock, ground
>psychic, ghost, dark

use the classic "this card provides one energy of one type at a time" rule most special energy cards had around gen 3. Attacks that require multiple types of energy count as all of those types but weakness/resistance only applies once - if the pokemon is weak to 1+ types with no resistance it's weak, if it resists 1+ with no weaknesses then it resists, if it's weak and resistant to 1+ or neutral to all then it's neutral. Change weakness from multiplying damage to being + X the same way resistance is - X.

It might become a more complex game, but it needs to be if they want to appeal to people who actually play tabletop games. Since most collectors don't play they'll still buy the cards regardless of the rule changes just to have them.

Currently, since the rebalance in Sword & Shield
>Grass is weak to Fire
>Fire is weak to Water
>Water is weak to Lightning
>Water (Ice) is weak to Metal
>Lightning is weak to Fighting
>Psychic is weak to Darkness, resists Fighting
>Psychic (Fairy) is weak to Metal
>Fighting is weak to Psychic
>Fighting (Ground & Rock) is weak to Grass
>Darkness is weak to Grass
>Darkness (Poison) is weak to Fighting
>Metal is weak to Fire, resists Grass
>Colorless is weak to Fighting
>Colorless (Flying) is weak to Lightning, resists Fighting
>Dragon has no weakness and resistance
>Weakness is double damage, Resistance is -30
The only exceptions to these are various dual Flying-types that aren't Colorless who adopted Flying's type matchups.
This is too simplified. There's little variety, ruins some flavor, and can cause inaccuracies with the video games beyond the type grouping compromise. Make Metal Heatran weak to Water or Fighting, Landorus should not be weak to Grass, Tinkaton should be weak to Fire even as Psychic, add more Resistances, bring back variable damage modifiers, etc.
With only 3 cases of Resistance and to only 2 types, I would not be surprised if the next era adopts Pocket and remove Resistance entirely should it stay this simple.
>>56856100
Looks good to me in both color and theming.
>>56856542
>nice tcg symbols for all of them
I don't understand why this hasn't been a thing. They don't have to be actual types in the game, they could've been seen in Trainer and Energy cards for more flavor.

It shouldn't have had Weakness/Resistance in the first place. If they wanted to make it a good TCG people are willing to play then it should have had every type (they don't actually matter), and each type functions as an archetype. Fire is more Rush Down/Burn decks, Water is more Mill decks (as most water/blue type decks tend to be in TCGs), Poison is a slow burn or causes energy issues, Psychic could be all about self-milling and searching, etc.

When it comes to energies you can easily work around this by having catch all energies, or perhaps at this point scrap them entirely and have specific energies for specific things. You need X energy to evolve, Y energy to mega, Z energy to gigantamax, W energy to do moves. Or just a singular energy that does all of these things to reduce the clutter. Hell you could even take a page out of YGO with the gimmicks like Mega and so on and have them work similarly to Xyz, Synchro, etc.

The amount of control and thought process put into the Pokemon TCG is astronomically stupid. Hell even if you didn't want to do that, why not just have the type symbols on the cards with every individual Pokemon having their own respective weaknesses/resistances? Why can't the Green Card have either Grass/Bug Symbol, if it's Grass, guess what its Weak to the Red Fire card, if it's Bug guess what it's weak to the Purple Psychic Card. It's so beyond stupid.

File: regigigas-lv.x-stormfront(...).jpg (166 KB, 600x825)

166 KB JPG

>>56851283
It's funny because Pokemon is easily the easiest TCG to play already.
I feel like the right answer would be to make things MORE complicated. One of the all-time favorite formats was pre-HGSS Gen 4, and that was one of the most convoluted and text-heavy formats in the game's history.

>Pokemon has a single 4x weakness in game
>It's TCG weakness is a type it's actually neutral against
Always makes me mad...

File: en_US-SWSH8-064-swampert.jpg (225 KB, 734x1024)

225 KB JPG

>>56858475
>Pokémon has a single 4x weakness in game
>Its TCG Weakness is a type it's actually immune to

>>56855561
A fire resistant steel, why? It would make more sense for Water (except those based on Ice) and Colorless (Dragons) to have that resistance in a common way.

Also to balance they should make Colorless (Flying) resistant to other types and not just screw up the fighting all the time, for example giving them resistance to Grass (Grass and Bugs) and giving several colorless (Flying) cards weaknesses to Fighting and Water.

I mean the game is not perfect, but many things could reach a balance if they just varied the weaknesses and resistances instead of making a copy and paste of an entire type.

>>56859120
>A fire resistant steel, why?
Heatproof.

>>56859120
>A fire resistant steel, why?
Because it's Bronzong and that's representing its Heatproof ability, though it should be neutral to Fire in that case. It's still baffling, but there is a basis for it.

>>56858475
>>56858678
>TCG Pocket uses the same Weakness logic as the current physical TCG
>Jigglypuff is weak to Fighting when it's neutral to it in the games
>Eelektross doesn't lack a Weakness to represent Levitate similar to >>56855561
How hard did the Simple Beam hit Creatures and DeNA?

>>56858678
Water types WERE weak to Grass before, but when the TCG was rebalanced for SwSh, they changed Water's weakness to Lightning and gave the Grass weakness to Darkness

https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/changes-coming-to-the-pokemon-tcg-with-sword-shield

>Water-type Pokémon: Weakness to Lightning instead of Grass

>Psychic-type Pokémon: Weakness to Darkness instead of Psychic

>Darkness-type Pokémon: Weakness to Grass instead of Fighting

>>56853471
see, that's not quite what i meant by it works more as an RPG than as a competitive scene.

Early WotC era PTCG has some significant balance issues, BUT those balance issues aren't a problem when it's the player VS npcs, and you can't just throw money at it to have the most meta deck possible, you're building decks out of whatever packs you crack defeating enemies and slowly increasing the quality of your deck as you open good cards.

Also because constructing decks to specific challenges is a thing you can do, nay kind of have to do, unlike a tournament where you have 1 deck and it needs to be flexible enough to beat everything it faces. Its an environment where haymaker aggro isn't an autowin, because some matches tamper with the rules of the game, typically in the enemy's favor, leaving you to alter your deck or strategy to handle it, and also because people are running things other than the other meta decks, things that actually cause haymaker problems but would never be ran because they easily fold to certain other strong meta decks.

Basically, it's a bad game for "all decks in a free for all against each other" tournament format, because you end up with a meta of only like 4 total: haymaker, alakazam fatties, rain dance, and buzzapdos, because they're generically robust or exceptionally fast and efficient at putting out a mediocre but very specific amount of damage that knocks out other meta decks before they can get rolling.

But it's a great game for deckbuilding player vs a campaign of enemies using rogue decks.

>>56859564
Changing the weakness for the whole typing is so stupid and lazy. They could've made them weak to more than one types and adjusted it per Pokemon but of course those lazy shits wouldn't do that.
Funny thing is they're not even that lazy cause they also do this >>56854963
So really they're just not taking weakness and resistance seriously

>>56852668
>YGO is power creeping to hell and back but offering up peak waifu cards but being a mess of a TCG
Everytime I hear about YGO's meta, I get surprised it still has a competitive scene. Also, are those waifu cards in DL too?
>Pokemon has to constantly rebalance every 5-7 years, makes a mess of everything, and nobody even bothers playing it and its just a collector and scalper's wet dream
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that PTCG has a mess of a meta though. Probably because the mainline games also tend to be pretty messy too.

>>56851265
I'm glad they got rid of it because that dark pink background colour made cards look fugly

File: tumblr_ngn4ggaTjW1qia2dho(...).jpg (140 KB, 688x636)

140 KB JPG

>>56856100
Just out of curiosity, what if we used the YugiOh system?
Earth: Grass, Ground, Rock, Steel
Fire: Fire, Electric, Fighting
Water: Water, Ice, Poison
Wind: Flying, Bug
Dark: Dark, Ghost, Psychic
Light: Dragon, Fairy, Normal

or the Magic system based more on the ecosystem

>>56862731
No, I like our system being just the colors of the rainbow.
Red (Fire), Blue (Water), Green (Grass), Yellow (Lighting), Orange (Fighting), Purple (Psychic), Indigo (Darkness).
And Colorless.

They should get rid of Gold (Dragon) and Silver (Metal), because they don't fit the theme.

I don't know why some types reserve their own energy like Electric or Dragon but Psychic is like every type.

I'd prefer to have one for each type.

>>56854963
TCG is a different game. It's that simple.

>>56862902
The TCG would be a fucking mess with as many as types as the games

Types are grouped together as one for balance and simplicity

>>56862902
What could you possibly mix with Electric? Steel? The types that get combined have some thematic similarities. Fighting is raw physical strength that Rock and Ground have. Flying was never a mono type until gen 5, Ghosts fit with Psychic as a mystical type, Bugs and Grass share a habitat, and Poison was the original "antagonist" type to fit with Dark.

Remove Dragon
Give Poison its own type and put Ghost in with Darkness instead

>>56858306
Exactly, the game is too easy to be a "oh you brought the wrong weakness now you lose" gamble, so at least there's a few mons to counter the big meta champs. At least that's more or less the intention.

>>56863196
Dragon is now the neutral type 2 in a way.
They now neither hit effective, nor ressist, and do not have energy on their own.

If anything its probably the most balanced.

>>56863845
if that is the case now, what is the point of Dragon type cards when they can just be Colorless cards like they originally were?

They haven't given any ghosts Colorless resistance in over 10 years, so that isn't a factor.

>>56864410
>>56863196
They should make Dragon weak to Dragon and resist whichever type is most fitting to the Pokémon, typically Fire. If not, there's not much harm in moving it back to Colorless.
I can see moving Ghost to Darkness. Makes more sense when Psychic and Ghost are already weak to Darkness.
Poison becoming its own type would lead to the same problem as Fairy should they get their own Energy and not be Dragon, but limited to Grass, Psychic, and Darkness. Best to let it stay as one of the three types it's been associated with throughout the game's history.

>>56854940
why didn't they make fairy resist that

>>56862857
But Darkness is black. There's no black in a rainbow.

Does this fix Resistance correlation?
>Grass: Lightning
>Bug:
>Fire: Grass or Fire
>Water: Fire or Water
>Ice:
>Electric: Lightning or Metal
>Psychic: Fighting
>Ghost: Colorless or Fighting
>Fairy: Dragon
>Fighting: Darkness
>Ground: Lightning
>Rock: Colorless
>Dark: Psychic or Darkness
>Poison: Grass
>Steel: Darkness or Colorless or Grass or Psychic or Dragon or Metal
>Dragon: Fire or Lightning
>Normal: Psychic
>Flying: Fighting or Grass

>>56856542
>fire electric fairy
>water/ice steel
you what nigga?

>>56862857
i'd be fine with normal and steel being folded (back) into normal.

Normal is weak to fighting and resists psychic

Steel "normals" would be weak to fire and resist dark

Dragon "normals" are weak to colorless, that used to be a rule, and resist... fuck it let's say the two colors in their energy costs, that seems fitting.

>>56856542
>>56862731
>>56862857
What if we have the basic Energy cards function like Blend or Unit Energy?
If the TCG typing remains unchanged, Blend Energy can become the new basic Energy; 2 cards providing 1 Energy for 4 different types, alternatively, 4 cards for 2 different types. Colorless can still be a wild card, and Dragon can go back to Colorless or stay as is.
If all 18 types are their own types, basic Energy can be a revamped Unit Energy; 6 cards for 3 different types.

I played the Pokemon tcg for the first time yesterday with a friend who has played for years and managed to beat him in most games, is my friend retarded or is this game all luck?
I have played MTG for many years so I understood card advantage and tempo and stuff like that, it seemed very simple.

File: images.jpg (9 KB, 200x279)

9 KB JPG

>>56865041
Darkness is indigo.
I don't know how to tell you, but the background isn’t black.
It’s indigo.

why does the TCG not do dual type Pokemon?
seems like an interesting design space since they have twice the synergy.

>>56866715
There have been dual types in the past.

File: OBF_025_R_EN.png (629 KB, 736x1024)

629 KB PNG

>>56866715
There is a dual type in the current format. There's also been dual types previously as >>56866729 said that's not due to an ability.

>>56866715
>>56866763
https://pkmncards.com/is/dual-type/page/1/
Most of them were delta species or Rocket/Magma/Aqua Pokemon(all dark secondary)

>>56866647
Anon, that's Dark Cyan/Grey Blue mixture, it's not Indigo at all.

>>56851433
Isn't that how dragon worked back in the day?

>>56866770
>Most of them were delta species or Rocket/Magma/Aqua Pokemon(all dark secondary)

kinda lame that most of them are just adding steel or dark, also seems like the last one was released in a set from 8 years ago. seems like cool design space that was abandoned for some reason.

>>56866763
having to waste your ability slot to get duel typing kinda sucks, particularly when they already showed how to make dual type cards by changing the frame.

File: pokemon 1 weakness.png (32 KB, 743x677)

32 KB PNG

>>56856542
It would be too hard to properly do. You can come damn close, and maybe there's just a combo I didn't think about, but one of the is always gonna be off, in this case Steel < Dragon, which at least has some resistance basis. And in this case, Normal/Colorless being the gimmick catch-all type that can fit any energy.

>>56866510
Pokemon is a pretty simple game so it wouldn't surprise me a magic player would be good at it.

>>56866763
What does being a dual type do for it?

Why not just put Dragon in with Fire? Dragons are commonly associated with fire, and the Water weakness would still work because Water type is also Ice in the TCG

>>56867616
It hits supereffective against steel

>>56867632
Because then you'd have Kyurem and stuff weak to it. Dragon should be moved to Colorless.

>>56867961
>Because then you'd have Kyurem and stuff weak to it.
Not if you take a minute to think and give Kyurem a different weakness like Metal because it's Dragon/Ice in the games rather than just slap Water weakness and call it a day because it's Dragon.
Dragon is still better off as Colorless or its own type.

Nidoking and Weezing really puts In work as a deck. Extremely likely to beat Mewtwo, a good matchup against Pikashit, about 40-50% against Starmie/Articuno decks, and only gets stomped by the ever rare fighting decks I never run Into and Charizards that manage to nuke a Nidoking. Having poison up constantly Is so good

>>56858306
>the right answer would be to turn it into a big pile of shite like Yu-Gi-Oh
No.

>>56851412
Cards are on rotation. You wouldn't be allowed to use a Fairy-shitter with the current format.

>>56862562
>Everytime I hear about YGO's meta, I get surprised it still has a competitive scene. Also, are those waifu cards in DL too?
Not that anon, but in a lot of ways Yu-Gi-Oh is to cards games as Pokemon is to video games, and in turn the player base is too loyal at this point to leave the series even when it goes to shit

They abandoned it because they were depressed they didn't find out about the tcg pocket discord sooner https://discord.gg/KjEGKqrc

>>56856100
Ghost should be dark.

They're retarded. They should keep types simpler, not more complicated, and tailor each individual Pokémon's weaknesses and resistances. They've been trying to apply a broad brush to all those of the same type, which never works.

>>56856100
Here's how I would do it, including in the games:
>Natural
Normal
>Blazing
Fire
>Electrified
Electric
>Aquatic
Water & Ice
>Verdant
Grass & Bug
>Rugged
Rock & Fighting
>Cerebral
Psychic & Poison
>Metallic
Steel
>Sinister
Dark & Ghost

THEN, you have an additional set of "attributes" which may be added on top:
>Airborne
Flying & Levitate (even some Pokémon who don't have the ability but their designs obviously show them floating, like Reuniclus, may get it)
>Grounded
Ground
>Draconian
Dragon

This way, Pokémon could break free of nonsensical type restrictions.
Charizard & Gyarados can have the "Airborne" and "Draconian" attributes without really changing anything.

>>56871554
You could do it simpler than that.

>Fire, Electric, Water, Ice
>Grass, Bug, Normal
>Ground, Fighting, Rock, Steel
>Dark, Poiso, Psychic, Ghost
>Dragon, Fairy, Flying

>>56871608
Yeah, except that's stupid and you thought about it for five seconds as opposed to my month's worth of work.

Also, Fairy isn't canon.

File: raichulovesong.png (754 KB, 1109x1109)

754 KB PNG

If I start on MumuPlayer and/or mobile, can I link my account between the two?

>>56872224
Yes. It's automatically linked with your Trainer account

>>56851265
Creatures is retarded and couldn't make it work because they're gay retards.

>>56852309
This is retarded, they should just fucking make the cards weak to whatever they're weak to in the game. Also cards should be Dual Typed

>>56852447
Diamond and Pearl did it best where weaker cards had +10 or +20 weakness but the stronger cards were x2

>>56872322
Much too complicated and that wood make too many types.

File: Pokemon_TCG_Scarlet_Viole(...).png (417 KB, 749x1044)

417 KB PNG

>>56869839
Nope, Ghost is perfect being lumped in with Psychic. They're both weak to Dark type.

What would Ghost's weakness be if it was also lumped in with Dark? 'Also Dark'?

File: Gengar.png (1.1 MB, 860x600)

1.1 MB PNG

>>56855199
You are correct. It's a 'Poison' variant with a 'Ground' weakness. There's also a 'Ghost' variant with Darkness weakness.
They're actually really fun to pair up in a deck. You can switch the 'Poison' Haunter's type via evolution and counter any Fighting/Ground attackers with Ghost-type Gengar which would be super-effective.

File: Zapdos.png (515 KB, 430x600)

515 KB PNG

>>56852728
What else is it gonna be weak to?
>"Water because Ice"
>"Fighting because Rock"
Zapdos is super-effective against Water AND Fighting types... it would be completely fucked.

Flying types get Lightning weakness and Fighting resistance. Zapdos is a flying type in the card game. Simple as.

File: MewtwoBaseSet10.jpg (25 KB, 300x419)

25 KB JPG

>>56872728
>What would Ghost's weakness be if it was also lumped in with Dark? 'Also Dark'?
Why not? Ghost is weak to both Dark and Ghost. It would be like the old days where Dragonite was weak to Colorless and Psychics were weak to Psychic.

File: Darkness.png (1.57 MB, 1290x600)

1.57 MB PNG

>>56872922
Darkness already has 2 weaknesses:
- Fighting (because Ground>Poison) and
- Grass (because Bug>Dark).
- Lightning (Dark/Flying types).

In the TCG, having MORE diversified weaknesses is extremely beneficial for a type, that's why Darkness is already overpowered as fuck, because you can have multiple Darkness-type Pokémon but with different weaknesses.
It definitely doesn't need a 4th weakness, plus Ghost and Psychic already share similar weaknesses and go together thematically.
Thrust me, the current type allocations are 100% perfect now. And they finally perfected it in S&V by bringing back Dragon type as a gimmick type with zero weaknesses but also zero Energy cards.

>>56871735
Because your "months of work" is just the game basically, with Poison/Ghost switched, and Ground/Flying given their own type.

File: Type Chart.png (141 KB, 681x960)

141 KB PNG

This is the best way I can explain the current type chart. I think it's perfect the way it is now.

Dragon type coming back as a gimmick type with no weakness and no energy cards - but requiring a combo of 2 different energies like Fire & Water - is a really clever way of making the type balanced and viable.

>>56873125
In the original Delta Species set, the only Pokémon that completely changed types became either Lightning or Fire, and the theory is this was because Lighting and Fire were the only types at the time that only had one standard weakness option.

Is this a gacha I can reroll in if I haven't started completely yet?