The new N, Shauna?


Is Shauna a viable replacement for N, or is N just too good for the opponents refresh?


I’d like to go on record: Shauna is a bad card.

It’ll probably have to be the replacement when N rotates. That’ll be a sad, sad day.


It’s BW Promo 99 so if LTR stays in (And it wouldn’t surprise me by Pokemon’s standards) I hope we get a similar card in the ORAS sets if it does get rotated, like a PONT reprint.


Well, TPCi rotated 4 sets, so if that happens again, we will lose BCR(1), PLS(2), PLF(3) and PLB(4) so it looks like N could stay in for another year…

But I agree, Shauna is just a bad card.


Let’s not let this runaway into rotation speculation.


They rotated three expansions and a mini set. They wouldn’t render the Lugia EX reprint useless.


Bar card? Too much. I like shauna for some cases.

Opponent with a poor hand?

Shauna … Not a new N


I think at the moment Shauna is only viable as a one-of. It certainly does not replace N in any way, the power level of N is far too high for Shauna to compare. Shauna gets better when you start taking Prizes, but N gets better when your opponent does. It’s the best comeback tool this game has right now.


Although I don’t like N being in this format (N to 1 at the end of the game = top deck mode), it is the better option as when you use it correctly, it benefits you more than that wannabe PONT - Should I take a prize lead or hold back with more prizes and disrupt my opponent when they take prizes?

N applies more pressure than Shauna as your opponent must accommodate for it. Shauna would be best as a one of in decks that don’t bench a lot (so they can’t abuse colress) for the late game.

When N gets rotated, the game will be more simpler and reduce the chance of unfair comebacks. Shauna will be staple if we don’t get any better to replace Colress, N or Skyla when they go.


Why would that be sad? N is a great example of a “broken” card; even if one is to argue it is “balanced” in terms of power, the way it works seems to disproportionately increase the amount of luck in the game, though there are skillful plays involving it. Yes, if your opponent gets lucky and pulls ahead quickly, you can try to turn things around by shuffling their hand down to one while still drawing five or six cards yourself. It would be much better to focus on minimizing the luck elsewhere in the game so that the odds of this happening were so low it wasn’t worth creating a card to combat.

Otherwise, if you play skillfully and pull ahead of your opponent, this gives them a way to luck into a potential win. While it still will take a modicum of skill to make a comeback, with the current card pool it is largely just competently playing a few cards while hoping your opponent whiffs on his or her draws after the N. Also if the idea was that the player ahead in Prizes was “winning”… we all know that’s often a misleading measurement (this only matters if that was the intent).

Oh, and remember when you actually were allowed to build up your hand and the skill was in grooming it for larger and more complicated combos? Though not the only thing that hurts, N is one of the culprits behind it.

It isn’t a wannabe Professor Oak’s New Theory, its another Professor Oak’s Research. Yeah, that is the first card to have you shuffle and draw five. That doesn’t make it adequately powered for this format, but since I’m tired of having to wait out overpowered cards, not sure if that is a bad thing. Also… why do the-powers-that-be keep taking cards of male Professors and turning them into girls? Professor Birch became Bianca then apparently Professor Oak’s Research was Shauna. Kind of getting creepy. >.>

Anyway, for those wanting raw draw power, we have a lot of useful Items at the moment and even when we lose N we should keep most of them. We’ll still have Professor Sycamore and Battle Compressor and Lysandre’s Trump Card and VS Seeker: pretty sure you can rip through your deck to your heart’s content.


Incorrect. Shauna is subpar compared to the current selection of cards in the modified format. That makes it bad. If I started the scale at things like Cedric Juniper and used logic like that, I could say that every card in the format is “good.”

[quote=“Otaku, post:10, topic:4109”]
Why would that be sad? N is a great example of a “broken” card; even if one is to argue it is “balanced” in terms of power, the way it works seems to disproportionately increase the amount of luck in the game, though there are skillful plays involving it. Yes, if your opponent gets lucky and pulls ahead quickly, you can try to turn things around by shuffling their hand down to one while still drawing five or six cards yourself. It would be much better to focus on minimizing the luck elsewhere in the game so that the odds of this happening were so low it wasn’t worth creating a card to combat.
[/quote]I’ll go on record as hating N too, it’s just that shuffle/draw 5 is such a terribly bad effect that I dread the day I have to play it. Anyone who thinks getting lucky of draw supporters is a big thing now has a lot to look forward to when shuffle/draw 5 is the second best thing in format.

You don’t have to sell me on the negative effects of N, I’m already well aware and in agreement.


Just for the record, I think shauna is a great card and I would almost always play 2 or 3.


Honestly, if we have a format in which the only real hand disruption is Red Card, Tierno is probably better than Shauna.


I think it really just depends how you intend to use shauna, if you’re intentionally discarding cards such as energies, I see no reason running 2 shauna couldn’t benefit you if you play a deck with a strategy like that. Low hand + Shauna = generally good results.

If you just want to deny your opponent a card its not going to do you any good at all.


Everything needs context. TV Reporter was a great card in its day, when the game was slower and other draw/search options existed, but now it would go ignored.

Juniper/Sycamore is a great card for speed decks, and now every deck has to be a speed deck, it works fine.

N is a technical disruption card (that’s how Admin was used after all), but the lack of better options forces us to use it for staple draw.

Ghetsis was an interesting failure.

Colress has its problems.

Bianca, Shauna, Tierno are just so mediocre I can’t care enough to be mean about them.

Battle Reporter is taking the piss.

This is bad because we are so dependent on these cards for our decks to work at the required (insane) speed.

Cynthia’s Feelings

Why can’t we have nice things any more?


Isn’t Professor Birch’s Observation better than Shauna?

Shuffle your hand into your deck. Then, flip a coin. If heads, draw 7 cards. If tails, draw 4 cards.


On average you’re getting 5.5 cards so to an extent yes but as BM said - “everything needs context”.

Although I would play N over both PBO (Prof. Birch Observation) and Shauna, when you’re behind and want to get more cards, PBO is much more preferable. Shauna is a guaranteed 5 cards which is enough late game to get through your deck when it’s thin enough.

PBO will be played over Shauna however people seeking a simple Supporter will choose Shauna as they can fetch a safe amount of cards.

I would play 2 PBO and 1 Shauna when it gets released.

Although Sycamore, Battle Compressor and VS Seeker do rip through your deck (I don’t consider Lysander’s Trump Card to act like that but does the opposite), we need to remember what else we are losing - i.e. Colress and Skyla - not for drawing through your deck but eliminating the need of hoping to draw a certain card.
EDIT - forgot to expand on this point.
Say a combination on these cards take 3 spots in every deck - not 100% sure if this estimate is close enough as it will be different for everyone. That would mean we are losing 7 cards (4 N +3 Skyla/Colress). We could max out our VS Seekers or throw in another Battle compressor - I personally wouldn’t do this but the choice is yours. There are still holes with the supporter line which can only be filled up by Shauna/PBO,

This is why I am watching to see if we get some good supporters in the 2 sets after Primal Clash (in time for the start of the next season) so we don’t need to fill the gaps with these mediocre supporters.

Thanks. Question (for anyone) - was that used at all? I ask this because, if memory serves me correct, that was the time when there were pokemon (Pidgeott FRLG?) which had sufficient abilities to support (ironically doing the job better than supporters today) a deck to set up.


You begin by restating my point. I never said Shauna was a card people should be playing, I just don’t oversimplify things into “good” versus “bad”. KPiplup, while perhaps I should have worded it more politely, the truth of the matter is I respect you and your input on this game… and that means when you make a really wrong statement in public, I’m going to challenge you on it both for your own sake and anyone else reading it that might also think highly of you but unlike me don’t realize you got it wrong. If I ignore you, it means you’re beneath my notice because for whatever reason, I’ve decided you’re not worth the effort correcting for your own sake or those few that might listen to you.

If you think Cedric Juniper and Shauna are equals, you are wrong and to a staggering degree. One is a pseudo-skill mechanic that either amounts to luck (too many Pokémon to memorize unless life rewards you greatly for the knowledge) or your opponent determining the result of the card; whatever the rest of the card’s effect that is terrible. The other is an old card with a new name, and said old card spent most of its time where it was Standard legal as either “adequate” or “good”. These two things are clearly not identical nor are they simply equal, even when the format is such that neither deserve a spot in your deck.

Not according to your previous post. It just doesn’t read that way; it makes it sound like N is wonderful and you’ll miss it, not that N is a problem and you’ll be glad to see it go… but you are also concerned over what that will do to the game because it might make things worse instead of better to lose it due to the other factors involved.


Here I would just point out that if we don’t bite the bullet and have some “awkward” transitional phase (or even phases)… the game is never going to get better. For those that think its awesome as is, that probably doesn’t make a lot of sense. For those that have played in diverse enough formats, especially sequential formats, it hopefully does; we had the overpowered mess that the game began with that transitioned into the almost painfully slow Rocket-On and Neon Formats, which gave way to the Eon Format which (while still obviously flawed) was the beginning of the best run of formats the game has known, when decks usually relied on some attacks, some Poké-Powers and some Supporters for set-up, instead of just one thing.


I can respect that you want it to be more than good vs bad. If that’s the case, just come out and tell me that, don’t hide it beneath statements like “Shauna is a competently balanced card…” I’ve been playing Pokemon from 7am-11pm for the past week; I’m not in a position to sit and analyze for hidden meaning.

You say multiple times that I’m wrong. Fine. Give me something concrete that indicates Shauna is not a bad card. You yourself say:

Maybe this is the loci of the disagreement. I fundamentally would say that a card not worthy of inclusion in a deck is bad. It’s certainly not good, and those are the two options.


If you think Cedric Juniper and Shauna are equals, you are wrong and to a staggering degree.[/quote]

C’mon Otaku, you know better. Of course I know the difference. My point is in regards to you saying:

It’s the definition of “competently balanced” that I’m trying to examine. Saying Shauna is competently balanced seems rather arbitrary to me; how is it any different than me hypothetically trying to say Cedric Juniper is competently balanced (and it’s everything else that’s overpowered)? What metric do you have that puts Shauna at the median of balance?

I’m certainly not trying to say the two cards are even in the same galaxy. I’m using Cedric Juniper as hyperbole to make the point that I don’t think your logic works. In the context of this format, I stand by my statement: Shauna is bad.

As I said, definitely not trying to say the two are at all alike. I was aiming for a card so utterly terrible in an effort to avoid this type of confusion; sorry I wasn’t more clear.

In the context of this format (which is, I’m assuming, the context we’re using. Comparing cards from the WOTC-era to cards of now on a level field would be ludicrous), shuffle and draw 5 is not a good effect. What’s the problem with me saying that, exactly?

If I’m interpreting correctly, your opinion is that it’s incorrect of me to reduce something to good vs bad because of the context of a public message board. Is that correct?

If so, I think you’re making a proverbial mountain out of the molehill. I understand your affinity for detail, and share it in many aspects of the way I think. However, I sincerely don’t believe that it’s necessary to write a thesis on the nuances of Shauna’s uses. I’ll respect that you feel I should’ve been more detailed (if I’m understanding this correctly) rather than giving a simple statement, but if that’s the case, I’m not sure how things like “deliberate attempt at misleading others” and this quote fit in your case:

I don’t think you have the grounds to tell me I’m wrong. You can say I should’ve been more detailed, or that you believe it’s incorrect to call a card bad in the context of a public message board, but none of those things are a hard-and-fast rebuttal to my point. You can even disagree and think Shauna is an instant 4-of, but I fail to see what of your argument makes me wrong.

If your point is that I could’ve worded things better (or even should have worded things better due to the context), that’s fine and I respect that. I’m just struggling to understand the immediately preceding quoted portion of your post in that context. If you truly believe I’m incorrect for calling Shauna bad, I’m waiting for you to tell me why it’s good.

I understand that it can occasionally get the right cards. My point is that in the intangibles of Pokemon, it won’t get the job done often enough. Do I have the data from thousands of games to illustrate that? Of course not. Do I even still have the Excel spreadsheet working out the probabilities of the whole thing? Lost on my old hard drive. For those reasons, if you fundamentally disagree with me and want to say that Shauna is good, that’s your opinion and I’ll respect it. I’d just appreciate it if you didn’t slander me in the process.


I really don’t know how you got the idea that I think N is wonderful out of this:

To your credit, there’s really not enough context to get the idea that I dislike N out of my post. With that said, I also don’t know where you get the idea that I think N is wonderful. I just loathe the day shuffle/draw 5 is the norm. I’ve played plenty of old decks, and I’m 99% sure Oak’s Research didn’t see much play.

Again, I can respect that you want me to be more clear. I can’t respect the notion that my post says something that isn’t there.

Whatever the case, keep in mind that I’ve got no problem with you personally, Otaku. Whether it’s a disagreement in argument presentation or a difference of opinion on the fundamentals of the debate, please don’t take anything personally.

Also, I’ll throw my two cents in and say that this current format is the best we’ve had since HS-NVI. Which was the best we’d had since DP-UL.