Talk:Pokémon Trading Card Game/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Pokémon Trading Card Game. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Miles at UofU. Peer reviewers: Austun Sheffer, GoforPapaPalpatine.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Image

Why is there an image of the Rare Candy on the article? Why not an image of a full card to show the reader what a Pokémon card looks like? I'd recommended a Pikachu card. -realwingus 09:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being picky, but the card shown there is REALLY old...Shouldn't we get a scan of a card from a more recent set, preferably one from within the New Modified format? Ron Stoppable 19:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, why do we have cards that aren't playable and not easily obtainable representing this page? If anything this page should showcase each style of card in an additional section.

better yet why dont we get a pic on an ancient mew card to show people what we mean by no reliable transelations--Pokemon30 (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Rocket returns and beyond

I noticed that the Team Rocket Returns page and all those after it (i.e. delta species, emerald ect.) have no pages dedicated to them. Perhaps the TCG wikipdedia community could get started on it?

I've kept on going. I know a lot more about these new sets, so they're substantially longer and aren't stubs. I'd still really appreciate it if people who know more about the old sets than I do can fill in the blanks. Also, should I put up articles for game mechanics (such as retreating, Weakness, Resistance, Poké-Powers and Poké-Bodies, etc.)? Ron Stoppable 18:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've edited/created pages for all sets including and after EX Unseen Forces, I'll start on pages for EX Emerald and before. Double Dash 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

EX: Legend Maker

Should it go after EX Delta Species in the 'Delta Species' Series subsection? Or should it be at the end of the 'Originals' Series 2 subesction?

I'd be enclined to go for the former; as in the UK and North America it was released after EX Delta Species. Plus, it is technically the beginning of the series, as it introduces Delta Species Pokémon in the form of the Pikachu box topper.

But, I do think it'd fit at the end of 'Originals' Series 2. It just depends which is more suitable. Double Dash 15:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Illustrator List

I am preparing to create a new page: a simple list of illustrators who have worked on the cards. It probably won't be complete, only 57 names, but I reckon it could be a basis to start creating small pages for each illustrator - or at least some of the more regularly used guys. What do you think, good idea or pointless?--Ninty 18:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, definitely; there's scarce info on here about them. Double Dash 11:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is done! I've added a link at the bottom of this article, I'm just gonna do the same on the Pokemon card page--Ninty 19:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

peer review

This article has been nominated for peer review. In my opinion, this article is too long and detialed. For example, listing the outcomes of all major tournaments should not be here. A separate page for these would be more appropriate. All that is needed here is a list of the tournaments, not who won them. The content is mostly relevant, but some of it needs to be diverted into separate articles. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Alright, maybe we should think about that after we do all the existing tasks on the peer review page, cheers Minun ^(talk) 10:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I already did some work on the tournament section by splitting most of the content from the section "Pokemon Super Trainer Showdown" to it's own article. I also put in a "main article" link. The point still sticks, though; too much information is a bad thing. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Representative Card

I believe it would be best to use a standard back of a card rather than the front. This would make it seem more universal for the game, rather than just using a picture of a specific card. Anyone else agree? Xiivi 08:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to have 1 trainer, 1 energy, and 1 Pokemon. Hopefully something from modified-legal sets. I'm not sure if there's a point to use something that's on EVERY card in the game. Spinach Dip 02:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Changes

To make this article better, this is what I suggest (listed by topic order):

Intro: Fine. May need some grammar editing, but that's all IMO.

Game Concepts (Original/Full Deck): Alright. May need some improvements involving certain types of cards, ie. Supporters, EXs, and Special Energy Cards. Also, remove the 'Original/Full Deck' Modifier.

Game Concepts (Half-deck/30-card deck): Looks very awkward where it is. IMO, it should be assimilated into the Game Concepts heading above.

Sets: Seems too long. IMO, the best idea is to remove the long list, and give some short overview as to which sets are modified legal at the moment, or something like that. Just make sure you keep the link to the main sets article.

Tournaments and Leagues: by subject now:

Pokemon Organised Play Program: Should be divided into 2 subjects; Casual Play, and Competitive Play. Casual would cover Leagues and Prereleases, while Competitive would cover everything from Weekly Tournaments to the World Championships. Should not be too in-depth, as that is the purpose of the Pokemon Organised Play article.

Tropical Mega Battle: IMO, this should be joined with the STS article, and the whole thing should be renamed 'Organised Play Under Wizards Of The Coast'.

Super Trainer Showdown: See above. Same advice.

Pokemon Card Labs (PCL): Deserves more emphasis. Afterall, PCL is the company that DESIGNS the cards.

Pokemon cards in Hong Kong: Does not belong. Might belong in a new article about OP differences over the world. Either way, it's not nearly important enough to belong on the main page.

Video Game Releases: Could be expanded slightly. Otherwise, it's just fine.

Other stuff: A comparison of the similarities and differences between the TCG and the RPG game would be interesting, and important to understanding how the two relate.

That's all for now. Discussion is welcome.

Spinach Dip 09:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All of these seem to be very useful changes to the article; I emphatically support this. My main suggestion is to redirect the articles on EX Deoxys, Emerald, and what not to the main Set page, because there's already overviews for all those sets in the page. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

New idea: there ahould be a 'terminology' section, which would be important for describing important game concepts that are very basic to playing, but not exactly 'easy' to find over the internet. It could be an expansion of the 'Game Concepts' topic.

PS. Because of school, editing will likely start on Friday. Get your ideas in before then! Spinach Dip 10:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Did the intro today. Spinach Dip 07:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The intro definitely looks better. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Did a complete re-write of Game Concepts, and changed the half-deck explanation into an explanation of all 3 main deck types. Spinach Dip 09:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Did sets. Right now I'm wondering if anyone's really interested in what I'm doing...

Spinach Dip 01:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, look at it this way; since there hasn't been any objections to what you're doing yet, you're doing great. I think most of the participants in the project think it's nice, what you're doing, and that they'll be more interested once the page is fully rewritten. When you consider yourself done with all the big stuff you should announce it outright and there should be more editing and a possible effort to promote it into Good Article status. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Did some major changes tonight. Spinach Dip 11:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Banned cards

The section on banned cards lists Super Energy Removal and Computer Search but says absolutely nothing about why they were banned. Some kind of explanation ought to be included in the article. --Brandon Dilbeck 08:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Italics?

Shouldn't Pokémon Trading Card Game be in italics, like Magic: The Gathering is? --SeizureDog 15:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Change the image?

How would we go about changing the image at the top of the page? The cards haven't looked like that for years. I was thinking about this one: [1]. I got it here: [2]. It kind of stays with the theme, but just makes it more modern. Joiz ^A. Shmo 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

One without the "PokéBeach.com" branding might be more preferable. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(1) Metal Energy cards, and (2) prizes

The article currently says there are no basic energy cards. I have a card that looks like the other basic energy cards, but it is for metal. So is the article outdated? NB My card is a Japanese Pokemon card bought in Japan, however the Japanese energy cards only have English on them anyway.

With the prizes, the rules say when you get each prize you put it in your hand. I'm wondering how this commonly works in play with regards to whether the ownership of the prize cards are supposed to change? The prizes remind me of Magic The Gathering's original 'ante' whereby the winner won a random card off the losing player. MTG's ante was originally contentious as parallels were drawn with gambling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RevJohn (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Basic Metal and Darkness Energy cards are due to be released in an English-language set on May 8, 2007.
The ownership of Prize cards doesn't change. If you Knock Out one of your opponent's Pokémon, you take one of the Prize cards on your size of the playing area (i.e. one of the Prize cards that you laid out at the start of the game) and put it into your hand.

Hope that helps. And in future, please sign comments with ~~~~, but without the nowiki tags. Cipher ^{(Talk to the hand)} 16:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks muchly Cipher! And yes using your own cards as Prize cards obviously works a lot better, we misinterpreted the rules... RevJohn 11:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking your opponent's prize instead is a modified rule my circle occasionally used as a means of "playing for keeps". It adds a bit of excitement to the game, but I'm sure WotC would have frowned on the practice. 66.43.47.161 (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm... o.O

I just wanted to point out that I highly doubt that the most common way to win is by getting all six prizes. You can't even prove that. There's no source on it. I recommend changing this, and making it simply "There are three ways to win, the FIRST of which is..." and so on. It makes it much more... well... realistic. T.z0n3 22:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course that is the most common way. You almost always will win or lose because of this. There isn't really a percentage, it's just pretty obvious. HaLoGuY007 12:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

- Actually, to my experience it is just as common to win by your opponent having no pokemon in play as it is to win by taking prizes Captain Carrot 11:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. A person there disagrees with you. And it doesn't matter if it's 'obvious'. Wikipedia can't pubish "2+2=4" unless it has a source. T.z0n3 04:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude. It just has never happened to me yet. It's just an opinion anyway. There probably is a source on it too, why don't you go check, such as in tournaments. Captain Carrot, it appears to me that you do not have a high pokemon to trainer/energy ratio (I hope I said that right) in your deck(s). I have many pokemon with a few trainers and an average amount of energys. I am not an expert player, I just play for fun. Sorry if I was being mean or something. HaLoGuY007 21:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No offence taken :) I was actually referring to the more common way I win, not the more common way I lose :P I only run about 14-18 energy in any deck and never run out through use of trainers. my ration of pokemon/trainers/energy is normally about 24/20/16 or thereabouts.

Okay thanks. I'm going to probably look up the source and see if it says what the most common way was winning in a tournament or some other statistic.

HaLoGuY007 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I like that thing. HaLoGuY007 19:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a major tournament player, and I can tell you that in my experience, tournament games are won by taking all 6 prizes about 90% of the time.

If you couldn't post something just because it's unsourced, this article would be 10 words long right now. Spinach Dip 19:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Then delete the article. Either source it, or its gone. I used to work on a page here for a third party game called "Endless Online". We nearly deleted the page (even though we played the game and knew most everything about it) simply because we couldn't find any sources to use. That's how things work. T.z0n3 15:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Metal/gold cards?

I think there should be a note here about the gold plated pokemon cards given away at burger king a while back. They're not playing cards,but are made of a heavy metal, coated with gold. I think there were six, one of which was Jigglypuff. I have one,and can provide pictures. ~DragonSparke —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.175.157 (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

They weren't cards for the trading card game, therefore, not important. -Sukecchi 19:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in thatcase, do you know where I can find info on them? ~DragonSparke

You can most likely find info on them from Burger King (unless they scrapped it already). Or Pokemon TCG, because they gave Burger King the right to make them. They must have some type of information, unless the cards are too old. I hope I helped you on your quest to find the holy info on gold plated cards. HaLoGuY007 21:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Those cards are old, worthless, and completely non-notable. In short, no. Spinach Dip 23:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the old Burger King one, I seem to recall they made gold versions of Charizard, Blastoise, and Venusaur tcg cards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirSnooze (talk • contribs) 03:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Types table

I think it would be nice if someone can scan up some images for the energy cards. We could include some thumbnails of the cards on the table of types. Another alternative would be if somebody could photoshop the type symbols and insert them in the table. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the cards and the images on them are copyrighted. I don't think the fair use clause would allow us to add these pictures here, and I don't think it meets Wikipedia's free use policies. Sure, the pictures would pretty up the article, but this is an encyclopedia; it doesn't have to be pretty. --Brandon Dilbeck 21:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have several scans of cards for Mattel's UNO card game, I don't see what would be the big difference with Pokémon cards. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

You said only 2 players can play at a time. Your wrong! There are 2 on 2 Team battles, there's 1 0n 2 battles, 1 on 2 Team battles (only if the person battling alone is really really good). Dude867 23:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon organized Play does not recognize 2-on-2 as a viable format. If they say it doesn't exist, then it simply doesn't.

K? Spinach Dip 01:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Legality in San Diego

I heard a few years ago that they were outlawed in San Diego because people were attacking each other over them. Can anyone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.81.3 (talk • contribs)

They've been outlawed at a school I used to attend, and a few others before I got there. The announcement was about yu-gi-oh (this was a long time ago) and the principal said they were banned for "Suggestive Themes, like pokemon". Crowstar^caws 17:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. Spinach Dip 08:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

They were banned at my elementary school in the late 90's because "they disrupted learning in the classrooms". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.224.229 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www1.american.edu/TED/pokemon.htm 184.96.219.82 (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

1998 Fad

There is no mention about the high demand for the cards, especially holos, when the game first came out in the U.S. MMetro 07:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add something about it, then. Spinach Dip 22:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fake Cards

There's not too much information on fake cards, I don't mean the ones that people make with the likes of Sonic The Hedgehog on the front, but instead the rip off cards, sold as real cards, anyone have any advanced information, beyond the fact of "They may be printed on inferior quality card"? Doktor Wilhelm 19:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest an article rewrite from scratch

WOW. This article is mud, totally lacking any sort of references and completely filled with unverified statements (and not even correct ones to boot). The one statement that got me to realize that something was extremely wrong was this one:

Sneasel - The first card that WotC banned was Sneasel from the set Neo Genesis. Sneasel was banned before it ever became legal for play outside of Japan

That statement is absolutely wrong. Well yes, it was banned, but not "before it ever became legal for play outside of Japan".

Then there's also the total omission of Worlds 2002 in Seattle from the "Major tournaments under Wizards of the Coast" section, as well as Wizards' final even at GenCon Indy 2003.

I'm almost tempted to rewrite this entire article myself... but I'm hoping someone else who knows what they're talking about will do it instead. For something as important and widespread as the Pokemon TCG, it deserves a much better article than this. - Nick15 (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pokémon TCG Logo.png

Image:Pokémon TCG Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Regular Contributors (Please Read)

I have tagged this page for deletion for the reasons noted on its articles for deletion page: please read and consider, this needs deleting. Cheers, Cipher ^(Talk) 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Banned Players

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately" as per Template:Fact. (I accidentally cited WP:Fact when making my edit -- that was incorrect.) Extra care needs to be taken when describing living persons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urzatron (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Has this article been nerfed?

I was click through some of the links on the page of the various sets, and it seems that this article has been condensed dozens of times, and a lot of the links are no longer available. For example,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_card#Owner.27s_Pok.C3.A9mon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_card#Special_Energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_card#Basic_Energy

these are all gone. What can we do to fix this? Duct tape tricorn (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Coins

Every starter deck comes with a set of cards, a playing mat, and a "coin". I can find no information about those coins. Apparently they are not significant. Does anyone know of a list of coins?

Nick Beeson (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

True... I believe that Base set came with small shiny silver Chansey ones. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Charizard

Does anyone feel Charizard warrants mention? After all, he was the rarest card in the beginning. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Charizard was no rarer than e.g. a Magneton, only more popular and hence valuable. If e.g. Magnetone had been as popular, that card would have been as "rare". There is no difference between Charizard and any other base set holo in terms of rarity. It could be said that Charizards have been better looked after, or the contrary but that is not a matter of inital rarity.80.229.163.140 (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

More major tournaments under Wizards of the Coast

Howdy! Can someone add both "World 2002" in Seattle, WA and their final farewell event at GenCon Indy 2003 as two other major tournaments run by Wizards? These two were THE events for their year for Wizards. I have some pictures and further info of those two events, and I'm sure a quick Google search for either of the events will get you some more good info.

Worlds 2002: http://www.nick15.com/images/worlds2002/worlds2002.html GenCon Indy 2003: http://www.pokemonaaah.net/images/gencon2003/gencon2003.html

- 66.92.0.62 (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Refs?

42 kilobytes long and only 2 references. WTF! Where the hell do you get some of this information from, like all that competition winners in completly unsources, how do i know some guy just didnt make it up and added all of his friends into the winning spots....

Someone really needs to reference this shit.

IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

disputed material

I have removed the following uncited material from the page. In addition to being uncited, the language suggests it is speculative and some of the text was commented out which is generally inappropriate for an article:

Some recent events suggest that PCL also has the ability to override PUI on any Organized Play related changes anywhere in the world. Without specific knowledge, however, this is a somewhat speculative statement.

<includeonly>====Pokémon cards in Hong Kong==== Due to massive imports of Japanese cards, many local players play the Japanese version of the game instead of the English one. The tournaments in Hong Kong run on different mechanics than other countries. They are operated by two different groups, the official POP distributor OTCHK and the unofficial HKPMA.

The OTC is a new distributor of the Pokémon Trading Card Game in Hong Kong that started up in June 2005, and runs POP tournaments using the American rulings. However, it has the same policy as the previous distributor (Trandy's Creation) of banning Japanese cards (which supposedly can be used in regular tournaments with appropriate reference), causing huge discontent amongst the local players. Up until December 1, 2005, the company had held one tournament with only 16 participants.

In contrast, the HKPMA (Hong Kong Pokémon Alliance) is an experienced group that has been running 2 to 4 tournaments every year since 2000. Initially those tournaments followed American rulings, shifting to Japanese rulings after the introduction of Japanese Pokémon Card Players Rule Ver 1.0 in Summer 2003. The HKPMA later on established a new branch organization, HKPCL (Hong Kong Pokémon Card Laboratory), to manage tournament matters, including the organization of tournaments, ruling support, staffing and documentation. To prevent the confusion between the 2 different rulings, HKPCL makes ruling clarifications on a regular basis, and sometimes writes articles in the PokéGym Forum to raise people's awareness.</includeonly>



Recently, the PCL received a threat that made them cancel the rest of their Spring Battle Road tournaments, the threat is currently unknown.

I remove it here rather than simply removing it, in case anyone thinks some of this is salvageable.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Trainer Sub-sets?

Aren't stadium and supporter cards in post-D/P (Diamond and Pearl) sets no longer a subclass of Trainers? Heliumboy (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Competitive play

I've marked that section for cleanup and rewrite, as I don't think it belongs in this article at all, and especially not the Organized Play section. I think it should be removed entirely, but I am giving someone the chance to fix it first before taking it out. - Lampbane (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

'Competitive Play' article

...needs to be cut out. It's full of unneeded and non referenced info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.75.35 (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Competitive Play section edit

I rewrote the Competitive play section. I gutted out a lot of the unneccesary rambling, changed some stuff around, and I think it reads a lot better now.

My only problem is that someone who plays the game should talk about some other tactics used competitivly. I am thinking the section can flow from the part about "Haymakers" on to another predominate tactic used. (To be perfectly honest, I don't play Pokemon, I was just looking on here from the WotC page, and saw this horrible section. If my edit still makes no sense at all, or is irrelevant, feel free to still remove it.)

I took off the rewrite tag, since I did that... left the cleanup tag since I still don't think the section is complete, even with my changes.

I am including the original here so that people can see it and don't have to go into the history.

My edit:

In most competitive games, one should include one or more large Pokémon, around which the rest of the deck supports. This type of deck is refered to as a Haymaker deck.

Over the different generations, and tournament formats, there have been several main stars when it comes to Haymaker decks. During the first and second generations, the Haymaker deck might consist of Scyther, Hitmonchan, and Electabuzz. Ideally, it would start with one of those three Pokémon, then one would play Trainer and Energy cards to get the upper hand. In the current format "Lux Chomp", "Gyarados", and "CurseGar" are a few decks that are seeing a lot of use in competitive play.

Original:

The actual competitiveness of Pokémon is different depending on the format. In the current format Luxray GL LV.X can be sold for 100 dollars . Most decks should have at least one expensive card, although there are exceptions. However, decks like LuxChomp and FlyPhan can be sold for up to $300. On the other hand however a deck such as Gyarados can be bought for about 150 dollars In the beginning of Pokémon, when WoTC controlled it, the Haymaker deck, consisting of Scyther, Hitmonchan, and Electabuzz, was easily the most dominant deck in the history of Pokémon. It should start with one of the three Pokémon, and use cards like Bill and Professor Oak to draw into energy cards and other damage boosters like Plus Power. The next format of dominant decks was with that of original Pokémon movie "promo" mewtwo and wigglytuff. This deck was called wigly-opera and it dominated the field of hay-makers of being as fast and even more hardhitting deck of current time with same complimentary cards of bill and professor oak,s. next format of dominant decks inclued Sneasel and Slowking from Neo Genesis. They both were eventually banned, see below for more explanations. The next dominant decks were those that focused around Blaziken ex. Few cards could ever stand a chance against it, but it was taken by surprise with Magma decks winning all three age groups. For a while, there were few decks as dominating as the three above, though some come close. Medicham ex decks that focused on shutting down Poké Powers were winning many tournaments. A deck called LBS or BLS (short for Lugia, Blastoise, Steelix) won the top three Juniors age groups in 2007. In the 2008 season, Gardevoir/Gallade (otherwise known as GG and Plox, Plox being the more Gardevoir-orientated version) was known to be nearly unstoppable, with Gardevoir having arguably the best attack ever. It did 60 damage, and shut down all of your opponent's Poké Powers during his or her next turn. In the current format, LuxChomp, Gyarados, and CurseGar are the decks that are currently "Tier 1". Pokémon competitive play is known for being less competitive than other Trading Card Games such as Yu-Gi-Oh! and Magic the Gathering, with players less fixated on winning and more on community spirit and tournament environments being more relaxed.

Bstewart89 (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

Something should be mentioned of the intense controversy these cards sometimes generated in the late 90s, particularly in schools. (Many schools banned them because they were proving to be so disruptive.) GrimmC (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Information about Pokemon generations is inaccurate, incomplete, misspelled, and completely superfluous to the TCG

Keeps getting added back in despite being wrong (number of cards, card order), incomplete (only one of six generations mentioned), misspelled (where = were, a 'trio' with only 2 members) and, most importantly, has f-all to do with the trading card game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSwarthout (talk • contribs) 05:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Players play Pokémon to the field and attack their opponent's Pokémon.

That's a quote from the first paragraph. It may be jargon, it may be some form of gambler's cant, I have no idea how the sentence originates but I can't guess what it involves in practical terms. The article as it stands is unhelpful and needs reconstruction. JohnHarris (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Best European Players TCG (Seniors)

Kaya L. (Germany)1st, Lorenzo F. (Italy)1st, Jake B. (United Kingdom)4th, Andrea T. (Italy)4th, Jay L. (United Kingdom)1st, Max B. (Germany)2nd, Beppe G. (Sweden)2nd, Rune H. (Belgium)1st, Simon B. (Slovakia)1st, Noah B. (United Kingdom)2nd, Lewis M. (United Kingdom)24th, Austin B. (United Kingdom)6th, Liliana I. (Slovakia)2nd, Alex C. (United Kingdom)5th, Zack M. (Denmark)2nd, Adam Z. (Poland)1st, Rasmus W. (Denmark)1st, Daniel M. (Czech Republic)1st, Bo V. (Netherlands)1st Noel B. (Sweden)1st

Poison in the Grass type

Hi, a question about Poison types. Were they really around in the Grass suit all that time (until 2019?) I have some cards that are Poison types in the video games, but are Psychic in the TCG, even before 2019 (ie Nindoran Male from Evolutions). Should somebody check this before I make any edits? Thanks! 23.28.31.25 (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Main article image

First thing's first regarding the image changes. Please annotate your rationale. This is standard Wikipedia policy. Regarding articles for trading card games, the card back image is typically the main image for these types of articles. For Wikipedia in general, the main image should be something that immediately identifies the subject matter. Logos are great, but they do not convey anything in particular except to identify a brand. I'd argue that the logo provides very little for identifying the subject matter of this article and I'd argue that anyone visiting this page is already familiar with Pokemon in general and doesn't need a logo to enrich their reading. On the other hand, a cardback depicts the game itself, and is what is being discussed and is exactly the type of thing a reader may want to know to associate the topic with the item being discussed - which is why cardbacks are the standard for TCG articles. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)