So, I've been looking into the Pokemon TCG because I'm

>>48934061
>The dumb mistake of not attaching costs to trainer cards?
Probably that.

>>48934061
Also because pokemon battles themselves are supposed to be 6 vs 6 max and you only have one active at any time, meaning that the complexity of the game isn't the actual pokemon but the set up FOR that pokemon. Also evolution isn't as relevant these days meaning less need to run multiple forms or the pokemon you want for some of the higher end cards/ legendries.

Narrative wise trainer cards represent people and things found on a pokemon journey and the games are usually focused on these characters and items.

It makes sense when that is considered, but it also is Pokémon... its supposed to sell to kids and be a more casual game.

>>48934334
Sure, but I don't feel two Pokemon on my bench and one active (none of which really evolve, because they are all ex or whatever) really captures the spirit of all this.

Like, the Pokemon website, the official pokemon website showcased a deck that ran only 4 energy cards. All colorless. Only one Pokemon was to be active in the deck. The rest were only designed to warm benches. 13 Pokemon, only 4 of which can attack and even then only one of their attacks can be used. And the. Like 35 trainers.

It just seems crazy to me. Especially since I bought a fat pack and the number of Pokemon cards I have outnumber the number of trainer cards like tenfold.

Pokemon is a game of engines.
Specifically who can set up their card engine best and dismantle their opponents.

>>48934698
Sure. And I understand that sort of system can have its fans. Stuff like preventing your opponent from casting items or whatever.

But like, in terms of tone and matching the source material, it seems way off and it doesn't seem like the company cares.

>>48935716

Well also keep in mind that once your opponent KOs six of your Pokemon (you know, like KOing all six of your opponent's Pokemon, though fewer if using EXes) the game is over, so "fodder weenie rush" isn't exactly a viable strategy here. That said there are a couple of viable graveyard-based strategies based around having a lot of Pokemon in the graveyard, but even those tend to want specific Pokemon for that purpose.

>>48935716
If it was too close to the source material, there would be no reason to not just play the source material which is automated and less work and money to play.

I quite like the design of the card game. The best part is that you can build rogue decks and homebrews a lot easier and they'll do well enough if you aren't playing at the biggest tournaments.

>>48934061
Pot of greed is banned but this shit is considered "not that good"? What the actual fuck.

>>48938676
anon, theyre completely different games

>>48934334
>Also evolution isn't as relevant

It comes and goes. 07-08 was fine with Empoleon/Garvedoir/Blazekin being popular, '09 was big Basics/SP heavy, 10/11 was evolution heavy (looking at Magnezone/Typhlosion/Yanmega/Emboar/Chandelure) and then in 2012 things got fucked up again by EX pokemon and 170 HP basics and it continued to dominate for some time. Even now they're struggling to make stage 2 as good as EX pokemon

>>48938676
Pokemon has extremely powerful card draw stuff. Honestly, the tutoring is so strong that makes the randomness of drawing from the top of your deck almost pointless.

File: Combo off.png (141KB, 245x342px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 245x342px

>>48938676
That card is "not that good" because you can only play one Supporter per turn, and a lot of other Supporters do more and/or key into absurd combo action.
Case in point, pic related was used in the 2015 championship deck to cheat out a stage 2 dude without going through his evolutions, and then used the dude as a combo piece rather than an actual combatant. Drawing three cards is not that great compared to comboing off and becoming Death, destroyer of worlds.