As an ex-magic player, I tend to think of all decks as existing on a triangle-shaped spectrum with Control, Aggro and Combo on the edges, and while combo isn't as pronouced of a thing in pokemon (with pure-bred combo not even being a thing in standard) I still think it makes sense in regards to pokemon. Aggro aims to hit hard and fast. A pure-bred aggro deck devotes as much resources as possible to reliably setting up and taking knockouts before the enemy has a chance to respond. Control focuses on denying their opponent their most powerful plays and ultimately the victory. Control's purest form is Stall, forsaking all real wincons with the knowledge that as long as they keep their opponent from winning they'll eventually be granted the win by default through deckout. Combo instead tries to assemble a certain set of cards and situations where the synergy between the cards causes you to win, preferrably as soon as you've assembled all pieces. I marveled at an example for the unlimited format I saw looking through deck lists for new ideas, that eventually drew the entire deck and repeatedly replayed Apple drop flapplin to deal an arbitrary number of damage to the opponent's pokemon. All decks map onto this spectrum, including Mill. Even as an alternate win condition a mill deck will either lean towards aggro - spending all of it's resources on milling the opponent out as swiftly as possible, control - denying the win while slowly whittling down your opponents deck or combo, kinda like the Lugia deck throwing reversal energy onto whiscash (though it isn't a perfect example, since I think that isn't intended to be the main win condition and is just something they pull out if the opportunity presents itself). Few decks belong on the edges as most decks will include some elements of all strategies. Which is why it is a spectrum. And the spectrum also cements aggro-control/tempo as a thing, a position on the spectrum close to the middle between aggro and control. One that doesn't need to run the opponent out of resources to the same degree as a more controlling deck, it just needs to make their opponent spend resources in sub-optimal ways in order to slow them down enough that the tempo deck reaches victory before the opponent can. With that essay out of the way I want to say that this was a great video. An overview of the different ways you can aim to control the flow of the game is very helpful, especially to someone like myself who's began looking more seriously at the game after a lifetime as an on and off casual ^^'
For aggro-ctrl, you might be interested in borrowing the term "tempo". As name implies, you control the pace of the match rather than your opponent's immediate game state. Tempo sets up early then denials via protection or disruption, making key plays of situational awareness.
Wow, thanks! I really like this term and didn't realize it existed for TCGs. It describes cards like Tsareena ex and Noivern ex perfectly. They're more than mid, I would argue, because of their effects, but not quite "control-y" enough either.
@@ControlPlayersUnite This was a really good listen to, and I agree with op's suggestion of tempo (I was coming into this to say the same thing). The only other "issue" I have is coming from other card games, defining control's goal as a win con of "concession due to frustration" may paint it in a negative light. While that can be an aspect of control (there's an entire deck that was dedicated to exactly that in Magic), my view of control is limiting the opponent's play options and out-valuing your opponent to close out the game in later turns. This may not translate as well going into pokemon where there's no one-to-one translation for sticking a big dude on board and backing it with removal like magic, but just another view point which seems to be where you were going at the end of the video.
@@iszac7523 Really appreciate your thoughtful comment, Iszac. That’s part of the debate/ongoing discussion-how best to understand these decks! Didn’t know that about MTG. Appreciate your sharing!
Excellent video, could you do one explaining the new bloodmoon ursaluna control? It's basically a pidgeot control with ursaluna (ex) and radiant charizard as it's backup plan, but whenever I play this deck I never get to the part of using those cards because If I KO any pokemon the opponent kinda comes back, even OHKOing me with a zard or any other pokemon, and control is usually already behind in prizes, so I try to just retreat lock one of their manaphies or something as my wincon. Since your explanations are so valuable and you have such a specialized vocabulary, I thought you could explain it better
As an ex-magic player, I tend to think of all decks as existing on a triangle-shaped spectrum with Control, Aggro and Combo on the edges, and while combo isn't as pronouced of a thing in pokemon (with pure-bred combo not even being a thing in standard) I still think it makes sense in regards to pokemon.
Aggro aims to hit hard and fast. A pure-bred aggro deck devotes as much resources as possible to reliably setting up and taking knockouts before the enemy has a chance to respond.
Control focuses on denying their opponent their most powerful plays and ultimately the victory. Control's purest form is Stall, forsaking all real wincons with the knowledge that as long as they keep their opponent from winning they'll eventually be granted the win by default through deckout.
Combo instead tries to assemble a certain set of cards and situations where the synergy between the cards causes you to win, preferrably as soon as you've assembled all pieces. I marveled at an example for the unlimited format I saw looking through deck lists for new ideas, that eventually drew the entire deck and repeatedly replayed Apple drop flapplin to deal an arbitrary number of damage to the opponent's pokemon.
All decks map onto this spectrum, including Mill. Even as an alternate win condition a mill deck will either lean towards aggro - spending all of it's resources on milling the opponent out as swiftly as possible, control - denying the win while slowly whittling down your opponents deck or combo, kinda like the Lugia deck throwing reversal energy onto whiscash (though it isn't a perfect example, since I think that isn't intended to be the main win condition and is just something they pull out if the opportunity presents itself).
Few decks belong on the edges as most decks will include some elements of all strategies. Which is why it is a spectrum.
And the spectrum also cements aggro-control/tempo as a thing, a position on the spectrum close to the middle between aggro and control. One that doesn't need to run the opponent out of resources to the same degree as a more controlling deck, it just needs to make their opponent spend resources in sub-optimal ways in order to slow them down enough that the tempo deck reaches victory before the opponent can.
With that essay out of the way I want to say that this was a great video. An overview of the different ways you can aim to control the flow of the game is very helpful, especially to someone like myself who's began looking more seriously at the game after a lifetime as an on and off casual ^^'
For aggro-ctrl, you might be interested in borrowing the term "tempo". As name implies, you control the pace of the match rather than your opponent's immediate game state. Tempo sets up early then denials via protection or disruption, making key plays of situational awareness.
Wow, thanks! I really like this term and didn't realize it existed for TCGs. It describes cards like Tsareena ex and Noivern ex perfectly. They're more than mid, I would argue, because of their effects, but not quite "control-y" enough either.
@@ControlPlayersUnite This was a really good listen to, and I agree with op's suggestion of tempo (I was coming into this to say the same thing). The only other "issue" I have is coming from other card games, defining control's goal as a win con of "concession due to frustration" may paint it in a negative light. While that can be an aspect of control (there's an entire deck that was dedicated to exactly that in Magic), my view of control is limiting the opponent's play options and out-valuing your opponent to close out the game in later turns. This may not translate as well going into pokemon where there's no one-to-one translation for sticking a big dude on board and backing it with removal like magic, but just another view point which seems to be where you were going at the end of the video.
@@iszac7523 Really appreciate your thoughtful comment, Iszac. That’s part of the debate/ongoing discussion-how best to understand these decks!
Didn’t know that about MTG. Appreciate your sharing!
Great outline! Btw, what would happen in a Vulpix VStar mirror?
You trying to not wake up people in the next room? lol 🙂
Excellent video, could you do one explaining the new bloodmoon ursaluna control? It's basically a pidgeot control with ursaluna (ex) and radiant charizard as it's backup plan, but whenever I play this deck I never get to the part of using those cards because If I KO any pokemon the opponent kinda comes back, even OHKOing me with a zard or any other pokemon, and control is usually already behind in prizes, so I try to just retreat lock one of their manaphies or something as my wincon. Since your explanations are so valuable and you have such a specialized vocabulary, I thought you could explain it better
Post coming Sunday!