I now find myself in a delicate position. There are now two separate issues. Did I overreact to a comment you made. The second is a matter of evaluating both the game and an individual card.
The first, after some consideration, would be an affirmative. I should have asked for an explanation, because the statement didn’t make sense to me. Instead I went into critic mode… and that was the wrong thing. For that, I am sorry.
As for the second… thanks to the first now I’m in a bind. Like I said, I should have asked questions first, begun analysis second. Now that I’ve enabled this to turn into “Otaku’s Rant”… the focus is likely going to be on that and not the issue at hand. So I’ll try again.
You need to back this up. I tried to explain why it wasn’t a good statement… but you’re asking me to repeat myself. I don’t know if it is because you disagree, because you missed something, or even if after explaining it I managed to delete the explanation and just haven’t realized it yet (one of the reasons even I want to be more concise).
This also breaks down into two things:
The state of the Pokémon TCG itself.
The performance of Shauna.
The short version (meaning I will have to explain later) is that
The game is not in a good place and it hasn’t been for quite some time.
Shauna is inferior to Professor Juniper/Sycamore and N… however in terms of draw power it will equal or surpass N except for when you haven’t taken any Prizes. For most of us using most decks, that isn’t that much of the time. We’ll lose the disruptive aspect that I don’t like and have tried to explain is ultimately bad for the game. Those that think that disruptive aspect is good will have good reason to miss N… but in follow up comments I thought you said you didn’t like that aspect, so color me confused.
I don’t like it when people oversimplify things to just “good” cards and “bad” cards.There are more than “good” cards" and “bad” cards. I don’t want to use descriptors like super-rare-awesome-chocolaty-fudge-coated-mega-super-card or terrible, horrible, no good, very bad card. It just isn’t very useful and can easily mislead people since sometimes a card is better than “good” or not quite “good” but better than other “bad” cards and… now we’ve got a mess. I’ve used Shauna - in the current climate she comes up short but if there are no better options, then that deficit will be negligible.
Yes, that was the short version. If it is still too long:
TL;DR: I probably should have asked you to clarify before diving into things. You’re eulogizing N before its gone and bemoaning a card that is N without the variance and disruption, so you better believe it didn’t come across how you meant based on your follow up. The game hasn’t been in a good place for a while (TCGs in general are suspect)… so being the best of the rest isn’t much of an accomplishment. Since Shauna is essentially a reprint of something that used to be good, you need to provide support for when you flat out call it bad… and if you just meant its not as good as what is currently being used, that isn’t “bad” unless you give bad a pretty bad definition.