October 2016 Article Schedule + Question for Readers

Tuesday 9/27: @sorina (Phoenix)
Thursday 9/29: @MarekFirestone (Phoenix)

10/1-10/2: Phoenix Regionals … Expanded … BLW-STS

Wednesday 10/5: @KPiplup (Phoenix results, impact for Philadelphia)
Friday 10/7: @thevilegarkid (Orlando)

Tuesday 10/11: @Rsabelhaus (Orlando)
Wednesday 10/12: @BrandonCantu

10/15-10/16: Orlando Regionals … Standard … PRC-STS

Wednesday 10/19: @kazambolt (Orlando results, impact for Ft. Wayne)
Friday 10/21: @rlaparre (Orlando report and tier lists for future)

10/22-10/23: Evolutions Prerelease Weekend #1

Tuesday 10/25: @Magnechu (Orlando/Ft. Wayne and Philadelphia)
Thursday 10/27: @Zimmerman (Philadelphia, Karen, Phoenix, :jack_o_lantern:)

Tuesday 11/1: @henryrossc (Philadelphia + Ft. Wayne)

11/5-11/6: Philadelphia Regionals … Expanded … BLW-STS w/ Karen
11/26-11/27: Fort Wayne Regionals … Standard … PRC-EVO

Woah … that’s a lot going on next month!

So, as we were putting the schedule together, it occurred to me that Regionals are pretty paramount this year, and it seems to make sense that we tailor all our writing around them. (Agreed?)

And I was thinking that it would be good to have consistency surrounding all Regional dates. For example:

  • The week leading up to a Regional: Both articles should cover that Regional format
  • The week after a Regional: Results discussion (tournament report), initial impressions looking ahead to next Regional in that same format — or start discussing the next immediate Regional?
  • The week in-between (if there is one): Anything goes?

I’m really interested to hear your guys’ thoughts on this. Last season was much different in that we’d cover the same format for like 2 months straight. Now, it’s more like 2-3 weeks one format, 2-3 weeks of the other. At least that’s what seems to make sense! Please do weigh in on this.

Also, with the limited time we’ll have to cover each format surrounding events, do you all prefer a wider spread of deck discussion, or a more in-depth focus on specific decks? (Or a mix?)

I’ll be interested to see a briefer tournament report from each Regional, as well as an impression of how that will effect the next Regional considering the change in cards that will happen for each. The first four Regionals all have different formats, as you’ve noted (Expanded, Standard, Expanded + Karen, Standard + Evolutions), so the authors this month really have their work cut out for them when it comes to providing valuable forward-thinking information. Reviewing the past will be interesting, but not nearly as valuable as prior years where you could make minor changes to your deck to head into the next weekend.


Very true! That’s a great point. We’ll try to keep reports somewhat brief.

1 Like

I think an exception for past performance details being brief would be where the author feels the deck will remain viable, as well as the matchups they faced. So a bit of intelligent discretion should be applied there, of course.

1 Like

Would love to see a bonus article on weeks with regionals, as the stakes are huge now. I think the most important thing with your schedule idea is to make sure to assign people to regionals they are going to be testing for, to increase article quality.

1 Like

Personally, I love tournament reports. I would love as many as possible!


My opinion:


  • we know the lists

  • PHO and PHI will have vastly different deck options

  • the writing for each should be approached differently (PHO is our last format with unchecked NM; PHI should be very interesting as nerfed NM should produce a totally new environment)


  • Lists, especially good ones, are much more helpful

  • Anticipating the impact of EVO will be significantly more important to Standard than anticipating the impact of Karen to Expanded (logic: Karen yields new deck options into Expanded meta; EVO creates new Archetypes into Standard meta)

  • Content contrasting the two formats, and the skills required for each, should be helpful

It’s worth noting that PTCG has turned a corner in its OP: The first two months of Regionals has an MTG Pro Tour feel to it:

  • Just as MTG has smaller events feeding into it’s PT (FNM; Star City events), so also does Pokemon (Challenges & Cups)

  • Just as the best decks are not really known till the pros play in PT, I suspect that the best decks will not be known in Pokemon till top cut Sunday afternoon.

  • Since the best players in MTG do not disclose their testing results prior to PT events, I can’t imagine the best Pokemon players acting much differently.

This is a great opportunity for subscription content: the sites that produce the best aid in this environment should be handsomely rewarded.


Please as much as possible of Russell LaParre ^^
So much exciting stuff coming out to talk about, I agree with @Patrick1865 in standard Evolutions > Karen.
Mewtwo, Raticate, Brock, so many cards that open up so much, as well as whole new deck ideas.
I feel like Pokémon is about to change for the better, exciting times.

I would love to hear about how people prepare, analyse the field and how it works out so I guess reports are cool, but theory is better for myself to read and improve than results, the results will follow.

I’ve been out of work recently but i’m gonna re subscribe soon :slight_smile:


I really don’t like this idea because almost all US regionals are Expanded and in the UK all that is going on is Standard LCs, which makes all the articles fairly pointless to me.

There will be about one Standard Regional per month in the US/Canada this season.

1 Like

This is something I often struggle with as you can see from my post-Worlds article. Do you find just a matchup spread helpful or what other information do you find useful?

These 2 statements are contradictory :stuck_out_tongue: but I know what you mean. Either way, I think that because of the release of Karen, the Expanded format especially gets turned on its head. Seeing lots of (good) lists at that point would be beneficial in my eyes.

1 Like

Perhaps as I phrased it, but not as I intended.

I intended to say something to the effect of:

I know a Vir/Gen decklist, but I would never play it without a nerfed NM in the format. Known list - new option for success.


I find information that can be used looking forwards in (our) own play is the best.

Alex, it’s hard to answer this question right now. I’d say discretion from the author is important when considering tournament reports. Say you ran Mega Audino for Worlds this year and had a stellar run. To me, an article on how you arrived at that deck choice and what factors influenced you would be better information than a report on how it went, because Audino isn’t exactly a viable choice going into a new metagame (I don’t think so, anyway).

If you run a deck that has viability going into the next available metagame, then some detail on your run, what you run into, how you think it’d perform in the new meta, etc would be very valuable. However, if you run Night March in October, getting a lot of detail on that isn’t as necessary because of the pending release (today!) of Karen - in that case, I’d rather see perceptions on what might run well during the next metagame.

Does that make sense or answer your question? I get a bit rambly sometimes.


Yeah that helps, I’ll keep that in mind when writing my October article!

I feel as though specific tournament reports take up too much of article real estate, and are more of a novelty. While it would be true to say that one can glean useful information about potential situations to find yourself in and how to properly play through them by reading detailed breakdowns of match-ups, I feel that when the rubber meets the road that more detailed deck breakdowns on all playable decks would far better benefit the community. And by, “all playable decks” I do mean just that; having all of the hyped and thus far successful decks being run in the current format. This does not mean 18 breakdowns of Mewtwo/Garb or Rainbow Road.

The lists give those players who are already building some variation of, an opportunity to look for holes for something that maybe they hadn’t considered in their initial build, and I personally enjoy this aspect of the articles the most.


I tend to agree. Leading up to Worlds, we had article after article on Night March and the few things that combat Night March. Obviously they were not the only meta decks. I don’t expect crystal-ball forecasting of the metagame, but a more complete picture of the metagame would be awesome.


Abso-freaking-lutely. This prior season that just wrapped up truly cemented why I don’t find the underground membership worth my hard-earned dollar that is already in short supply as it is. This is really just a quick aside, but as nice as it would be to have full access to the underground articles, I just can’t justify it when things like that are happening. The Night March list after Night March list, followed by maybe a Trevenant list here or there was appalling. Yes, Night March was king of last season, but perhaps if there had been more focus on unique decks that were not Night March, Trevenant, or Vespiquen, we could have seen the Mega Audino deck, or some variation thereof, coming and it wouldn’t have been the Worlds shocker that it was.

1 Like

I don’t know that I’d take it that far (like I said, I don’t expect crystal ball forecasting), but it’s certainly more possible that if reporting had been diversified, we’d have had more preparation for it.