The new N, Shauna?


#21

@KPiplup

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:

  1. The state of the Pokémon TCG itself.

  2. The performance of Shauna.

  3. Useful descriptions

The short version (meaning I will have to explain later) is that

  1. The game is not in a good place and it hasn’t been for quite some time.

  2. 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.

  3. 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. :wink:


#22

I definitely understand a bit better now.

My commentary on your points:

  1. Completely concur.
  2. Again, I don’t like that N is a 4-of. I don’t like the position it puts the game in. I lost my play-in R9 at Worlds to the dumbness of N draws. You will never have to sell me on N being a bad thing. I just feel that Shauna being a 4-of is worse. I have no way to quantify this for you at this stage.
  3. Understood. Simply a nunance in argumentative etiquette, in the context of a message board, I have no problem with simplicity in a statement. I can understand and respect your position, however.

As far as Oak’s Research vs Shauna…you yourself state the game has changed tremendously, so I don’t think it’s a relevant comparison. TV Reporter used to be good too; Cheren will never see the light of day.

I admit that I have no quantifiable evidence for it being bad (rather hard with intangibles), but I have seen nothing on your end that shows me to be wrong…which is my main exception with the entire situation.

Would it have been better for you if I had just said: “As a multiple time Worlds qualifier, I would advise someone to never play Shauna in their deck”?


@ShealynMillay: No need to hide behind Otaku in an effort to oppose what I’m saying, I’m listening for your take on the issue.


#23

Taking a risk making this comment, because I think the argument that didn’t have to be is finally resolving, and I don’t want to rock the boat, but I’m afraid I’ll forget what I’m starting to see now if I wait.

ties into

I’ve been doing that. You disagree with it so we keep going in circles. I might try to explain the explanation, but I figure I’m pushing my luck as is with the less technical matters. Still one more thing

Nah. I know too many people who have qualified for Worlds. :wink:

Though I did misread (or by this point had come under the mistaken notion) that we were thinking about the future. Seriously if this is talking about the present, I think the correct answer we should all give is simple:

No.


#24

I was definitely talking present-day. I can definitely see where future came into play, though. My mistake on not catching that.

It’s all contextual. Ugh.

If we’re talking XY-on (at risk of provoking this beast, everyone who thinks rotation will be otherwise hasn’t been around very long), then yes, it currently appears that Shauna will be “good.”

Also, my apologies for the formatting gaffe in 22. Shouldn’t have been large/bold text at all.


For those skimming, I think Otaku would agree with me on this summary:
tl;dr: The Internet isn’t good at conveying tone, debate is complicated, and nobody should play Shauna in BCR-PHF.


#25

I agree with most of these reasons so I’m just going to make this as short as possible.

I agree with this because Lysandre’s Trump Card gets the key cards back and reverses the drawbacks of Sycamore, which will in turn allow more use of Sycamore to rip through your deck - good point. All I want to say is that this reverses battle compressors effect which may put in less useful cards than useless cards in your deck. - still not enough to deny your original point. - "Lysandre’s Trump Card … pretty sure you can rip through your deck to your heart’s content.


#26

Oh, and I did almost forget one legitimate use for Shauna, something I learned about around the time the original EX: Team Aqua Vs Team Magma expansion: for better or worse some cards are designed for learning the game. I am of the mind that optimally… these cards would simply be niche usage for more experienced players instead of “Do not use” but if you’re not good at handling the ups and downs of things like Colress or N… you need to learn, but until then I guess you can use some Shauna.

Fortunately it also puts Battle Compressor back into your deck, which you then use to toss some of the less useful cards back out. Since top players don’t seem to be using it, at least right now it probably isn’t efficient enough. In the future, especially if we are giving the choice between maximizing VS Seeker usage so that we can spam Professor Sycamore to keep the kind of draw power we are used to?

Just might work. I already have had some success (but not enough to be conclusive) with it in decks where I want something in the discard (and thus can run two or three Battle Compressor) but still need that “soft reset” button that is Lysandre’s Trump Card. It also helps to keep in mind that in the current format this is a card you’re only going to play when you’re in a good position (able to spare a Supporter use) or you’re in such a bad position it is again warranted (“Oh, I’m about to deck out!”).


#27

Shauna has much better draw power, sure N is good for making comebacks and disrupting the opponent but that is about it. When my opponent plays a N I always welcome the extra draw. Shauna is consistent and can be used when I am winning whereas N becomes ultra ball material.


#28

When you are winning you probably wanna use Colress instead of Shauna.


#29

Yes but like I said shauna is consistent and colress is not. But this is about shauna and N, not about colress.


#30

You need the context provided by other cards, otherwise the discussion is meaningless.

If Shauna was the only draw Supporter in the game, it would also be the best.


#31

Yup; while it sounds like useless relativism, the format (which includes the metagame, the card pool and the current version of the rules and rulings) can render any card under-, over- or adequately powered. It can get really silly really fast trying to make extremely weak cards “good” or extremely strong cards “bad”, but it can be done.

A part of my argument (that could have just been a good debate had I been a little more careful) with @KPiplup is just that: shuffle and draw five was at the very least “less bad” in the past.* Colress itself had skeptics, perhaps some that are still holdouts. I know that while I was and am willing to use Colress, I am most grateful that VS Seeker allows me to run fewer copies and reduce the odds of being stuck with it (and only it) first turn or during a lull.

Now, if @ShealynMillay really does prefer Shauna to N or Colress, I can understand the preference; some players are all about reliable results. I do think both N and Colress are stronger cards, though Colress is at the mercy of the metagame: if it were to shift to almost vacant Benches so that it was almost all on you to supply the numbers for Colress, Shauna could easily be better.**

*I maintain it was actually a useful card at some point, but that is in disagreement and I’m not trying to use this to forcibly reignite the debate.

**Which does not mean it would necessarily meet the criteria for being an optimal pick; it might be that neither card in that case would be worth the effort of running.


#32

My point is that he said after you have taken prizes you want Shauna to draw cards, wouldn’t using N while you haven’t taken prizes and Colress after you do since Benches have increased over that time so you would always get more cards off Colress?


#33

That’s the goal, @OshaWaterBottle but a lot of the time it isn’t the reality. N really is almost as important for disrupting the opponent as it is for draw power as well; I tend to only avoid using it when I am sure it will benefit my opponent more relative to the current situation. If I want to shrink both our hands, for example, it is okay to know myself down to a single card and them down to two cards (technically a result “twice” as good as my own) if the entire point is I needed to get a card that would have won the game out of their hand.

If you’re not concerned about disrupting your opponent’s hand at all (or are more worried about how N seems to almost as often help your opponent out or make no difference in this regard), then Shauna looks a bit better. A reliable shuffle-and-draw-5. N only does one better and most decks are trying to take Prizes ASAP so N only does one better for a turn or two, then evens out then starts under performing… and you often can’t ensure that your first three or four turns you use up all your N and then can switch to the next Supporter.

Colress can get some amazing draws, but if your deck isn’t designed to fill its Bench it actually can get pretty risky. Building a deck that actually wants a smaller Bench can also then give the advantage of denying as fat of Colress draws to the opponent as well. In either case, I think both are going to be significantly better than Shauna and more so N than Colress.

Any clearer or did I make it worse? XD


#34

Yeah you kinda cleared it up. :smile:


#35

Guys we all understand that N can be good, but in this format your getting setup to fast and taking to many prizes. Shauna is a GREAT way to let your opponents sit there with one card while your getting five. And if your really concerned about your opponent having to many cards why not play Red Card? It is a great card also. I recently just won a city and I played Shauna. In most deck I play like 2 Shauna and 3 N. Sometimes its the other way around. All I am saying is Shauna can be played an it’s worth playing.


#36

Except how often is a competent opponent sitting there at just one card that is not something to get them more cards next turn? Yes I find myself doing that, but I have a tendency to take stupid risks that probably more often than not don’t pay off. ^^’ Shauna at most is worth a single slot, as you can just use VS Seeker if you need to use it more than once.

Red Card takes up and additional slot (versus just running a copy of N), even if it is only an Item. Four cards is actually quite a bit for a well built deck. Early game its great but mid-to-late game, N is likely to shrink it more.


#37

Death to N, Boo Shauna, can we please get some real draw support cards!!! Instead of stupid Battle Reporter rubbish…


#38

What do you have in mind?


#39

Bring back the PONT!


#40

It is just one less card than shauna?